Prayers

[Prayers were said by the Chaplain of the Speaker (Rev. Tricia Hillas).]
God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.
Approaching the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, I invite you to rise and be still to remember those who have died for their country in war.
In doing so we commit ourselves to work in penitence and faith for reconciliation between the nations, that all people may, together, live in freedom, justice and peace.
We pray for all who in bereavement, disability and pain continue to suffer the consequences of fighting and terror.
We remember with thanksgiving and sorrow those whose lives, in world wars and conflicts past and present, have been given and taken away.
Almighty and eternal God, from whose love we cannot be parted, either by death or life: hear our prayers and thanksgivings for all whom we remember this day; fulfil in them the purpose of your love; and bring us all, with them, to your eternal joy. Amen.

Lindsay Hoyle: They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

Hon. Members:: We will remember them.
The House observed a two-minute silence.
[Chaplain of the Speaker]
Ever-living God, we remember those whom you have gathered from the storm of war into the peace of your presence; may that same peace calm our fears, bring justice to all peoples and establish harmony among the nations. Amen.
God grant to the living grace, to the departed rest,  to the Church, the Queen, the Commonwealth and all people, unity, peace and concord, and to us and all God’s servants, life everlasting; and the blessing of God almighty, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, be among you and remain with you always. Amen.

House of Commons

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Royal Assent

Lindsay Hoyle: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020
Agriculture Act 2020.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Scotland

The Secretary of State was asked—

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

Hannah Bardell: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the extension of the coronavirus job retention scheme in Scotland.

Alister Jack: Today, on the 11th day of the 11th month, I am sure the whole House will join me in remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country.
I have regular discussions with my Cabinet colleagues on all aspects of how we support the entire country, including Scotland, through the covid crisis. The coronavirus job retention scheme has always been a UK-wide scheme, and it has now been extended until the end of March 2021, with employees across the UK receiving 80% of their current salary for hours not worked.

Hannah Bardell: May I associate myself and those on the SNP Benches with the comments of the Secretary of State?
At the last Scottish questions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) raised a very serious concern about levels of poverty when the job retention scheme ended. The Minister at the Dispatch Box said that November would be the right time to look at a targeted scheme, as if he had some magical powers of poverty prediction. Imagine our surprise, Mr Speaker, when the south of England went into full lockdown and the full force of furlough came back into force. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the notion of targeted is really targeted at the south of England, with a huge disrespect to Scotland and the rest of the devolved nations?

Alister Jack: Absolutely not. The Prime Minister was clear from the get-go, following Cabinet on the Saturday when we discussed the new economic situation in England,  that it was a UK-wide scheme. It is 80% for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is a simple scheme and it is for our whole country and he has been absolutely clear about that from the start.

John Lamont: The UK Treasury has provided an up-front guarantee of £8.2 billion to the Scottish Government to help protect jobs and to help the Scottish Government tackle coronavirus, yet we are still to hear from the Scottish Government about where more than £2 billion of that funding is to be spent. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish Government need to provide details urgently about how they will use that funding to support Scots?

Alister Jack: I agree with my hon. Friend. There has been substantial extra funding, guaranteed funding, to the Scottish Government—£8.2 billion, as he correctly identified. That is money received through the Barnett formula. The Scottish Government must not shirk their responsibility to be open and transparent about how that money is being spent. We need accountability so that the people of Scotland can judge whether it is being spent wisely.

Mhairi Black: The Minister has recently said that the job retention scheme will last into next year, but he has also said that there will be no referendums on Scotland’s future for a generation. The Edinburgh agreement, signed by a Tory Prime Minister, provided the legal framework for the 2014 referendum, so can the Minister quote me where it says in that agreement that there cannot be another referendum?

Alister Jack: I commend the hon. Lady for trying to get a referendum into questions about the job retention scheme. While we are all fighting this pandemic and trying to secure and support people’s jobs, it beggars belief that the SNP carries on talking about independence referendums and about separation. I find it really quite disappointing. The answer to her question is that it was mentioned many times in the White Paper that the SNP Government produced in advance of that referendum. The words “once in a generation” were mentioned on a number of pages.

Mhairi Black: I thank the Minister for confirming that there is no legal basis for his assertion on the timing of a future referendum. Given that it was also agreed cross-party that nothing in the Smith commission prevents Scotland from becoming an independent country in the future, can he tell us whose decision is it whether Scotland has another referendum?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The question must have some relevance. The first question got through, but you were trying to push your luck the second time. We cannot do that. The question must be relevant. Sorry about that. We had better move on.

Douglas Ross: The extension of the furlough scheme demonstrated again how the UK Government continue to support jobs in all four nations of the United Kingdom, and we need that support and joint working to continue following the positive news about a potential covid-19 vaccine. Will the Secretary  of State outline the work done between the Scottish Government and the UK Government to ensure that there is a seamless roll-out of this vaccine that has given us so much hope here in Scotland and across the UK.

Alister Jack: We have invested more than £230 million in manufacturing any successful vaccine.The vaccines have been procured and paid for by the UK Government on behalf of everyone in the United Kingdom. Doses will be distributed fairly and across all parts of the United Kingdom according to population share.

Alison Thewliss: A business operator in my constituency contacted me four days before furlough was supposed to end. He operates two bars in my constituency. As a responsible employer, he had kept on his 44 staff and taken on the debt from bounce back loans, but he was absolutely at the end of his tether with this Government and their last-minute decisions. Will the Secretary of State apologise to that business operator in my constituency for the severe stress that the Government’s dithering has caused him and for the distress that it has caused his employees, as well as to the many people who could not keep on their staff or who lost their jobs due to this Government’s incompetence?

Alister Jack: The hon. Lady will recognise that this is a dynamic and unprecedented situation, and we have to take decisions as we see what is in front of us. The employers of those who lost their jobs after 23 September, but were in employment and furlough up until 23 September, are allowed to bring those employees back and put them on furlough.

Co-ordinated Response to Covid-19: Devolved Administrations

Allan Dorans: What recent steps he has taken to ensure effective co-operation between the Government and the devolved Administrations.

Jeff Smith: What recent steps his Department has taken to help ensure co-ordination between Scotland and the other nations of the UK in response to the covid-19 outbreak.

Alex Davies-Jones: What recent steps his Department has taken to help ensure co-ordination between Scotland and the other nations of the UK in response to the covid-19 outbreak.

Iain Stewart: An effective response to covid-19 does indeed need to be a co-ordinated response across the UK. On 25 September, the UK Government and the three devolved Administrations published a joint statement on our collective approach to responding to covid-19. There are very regular meetings at both ministerial and officials levels.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now go to Allan Dorans in Scotland.

Allan Dorans: Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: I think Allan Dorans has been cut off in his prime, so I call Jeff Smith.

Jeff Smith: What is the Minister’s understanding of the application of the furlough scheme in Scotland and the other nations of the UK, given that Scotland is operating under a different tier system and different lockdown restrictions?

Iain Stewart: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has not vaporised into thin air. The lockdown scheme extends across the UK and is available whether a part of the UK—or a part of each nation within the UK—is in lock- down or not. It is there for everyone.

Alex Davies-Jones: The Scottish Affairs Committee described a deteriorating relationship between the UK and Scottish Governments on joined-up covid-19 policy making, with the main issue being trust. What work has the Secretary of State undertaken to improve awareness and understanding of devolution among Whitehall officials, so that policy makers have mutual understanding of the impact of decisions on each nation of the UK?

Iain Stewart: The hon. Lady raises an important point. As I said in my initial answer, there are very regular discussions between all Government Departments and devolved Administrations at many levels—be that in Health, Transport or Education. I think that there is a widespread understanding of the need to balance UK-wide interventions with allowing local flexibilities where circumstances dictate.

Lindsay Hoyle: We are going to try to return to Allan Dorans.

Allan Dorans: Will the Minister confirm or deny that taxpayers’ money is being used to employ consultants with the sole purpose of producing and promoting negative propaganda to encounter the increasingly successful campaign for Scottish independence? Is that not to the detriment of co-operation between the nations?

Iain Stewart: Forgive me, Mr Speaker, but I am not quite sure what that has got to do with the response to coronavirus.

Lindsay Hoyle: Is there anything that you can answer in that question?

Iain Stewart: No, I do not think that it is relevant to our discussion.

Lindsay Hoyle: In which case, I call the shadow Secretary of State, Ian Murray.

Ian Murray: I join the Secretary of State in recognising that it is the 11th day of the 11th month, lest we forget those who gave their lives so that we could live freely today. We will always remember them.
I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not congratulate President-elect Joe Biden on his wonderful election in America. Given that in a recent  poll 75% of Scots said that they would vote for Joe Biden, they have eventually got the Government they would have voted for.
The announcement this week of a potential covid vaccine is incredibly positive. While it certainly does not mean, of course, that we have reached the end of this crisis, it does perhaps signal some hope for the public. If the vaccine is approved, the country will face an unprecedented logistical challenge. If mass vaccination is to be done successfully, we will need all levels of government working together. However, a poll just yesterday found that two thirds of Scots were dissatisfied that the Scottish and UK Governments do not work together and a majority wanted closer co-operation. So can the Minister inform the House: what work are the UK and Scottish Governments undertaking together to build an infrastructure that will be able to distribute and administer any future vaccines to everyone?

Iain Stewart: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. Referring to his initial comments, I was delighted that President-elect Biden spoke to our Prime Minister ahead of any other European country, contrary to what some of the naysayers in the media were predicting.
The hon. Gentleman’s substantial question is a very important one and it illustrates the extent to which the UK Government and the devolved Administrations can and should work together. The vaccine—as he said, we are not quite there yet, but it gives very strong hope—is purchased by the UK Government on behalf of the whole UK. The distribution, the prioritisation of the vaccine will be a matter for the devolved Administrations. However, we are in regular contact and stand ready to assist with any logistics that will be required to make sure that it is distributed on the basis of clinical priority and not any other needs.

Ian Murray: I appreciate what the Minister said, but I think the public would look on it very unfavourably if both Governments did not work together to ensure that this vaccine is distributed.
But we also must not lose sight of today’s challenges. While the Chancellor’s latest plan to extend furlough until March is very welcome, there remain millions of people across the UK and in Scotland who have not received any support as lockdowns continue. The 3 million taxpayers excluded from Government support include countless self-employed, pay-as-you-earn freelancers, and many, many others. It is understandable that there may have been some cracks in hastily designed schemes announced in March, but not to fix those and to continue to exclude millions from any support is inexcusable. I raised this with the Secretary of State in this House on 1 July and 7 October, so, for the third time: will the Scotland Office demand that the Chancellor reconsiders and provides support to those taxpayers left without any help from this Government?

Iain Stewart: The hon. Gentleman’s question would have greater potency if furlough was indeed the only scheme that was available, but a wide range of support is available for businesses and individuals across the UK, including bounce back loans, tax deferrals, mortgage holidays and the like. In addition, the Chancellor has provided to the Scottish Government unprecedented levels of support, going up by an additional £1 billion.  It is up to the Scottish Government, if they wish to provide additional support over and above the UK-wide schemes, to ensure that they have the resources to do so.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can I just say that I am very concerned that the question was a substantive question that was within this grouping? The problem is that the grouping is not good, but it was the Government who put the grouping together. So I think the Minister ought to try to see if he could answer the question from Allan Dorans, because it is within that section.

Iain Stewart: If I remember the question correctly, it was, “Are we spending taxpayers’ money on fighting the independence referendum?” My answer to that is that we do not wish another independence referendum. The last thing that the people of Scotland need, and businesses and jobs in Scotland need, is the uncertainty that another independence referendum would create.

Lindsay Hoyle: At least there is an answer, even if it is not the kind I wished.

Voluntary and Community Organisations: Funding

Rachael Maskell: What recent discussions he has had with Scottish Government Ministers on the adequacy of funding for voluntary and community organisations in Scotland.

Iain Stewart: I regularly meet Scottish Ministers to discuss matters of importance to Scotland. Funding for the voluntary sector and community organisations in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Government. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the enormous work that charities and voluntary organisations do, in Scotland and the UK, to support our communities through this very challenging period.

Rachael Maskell: Charities and social enterprises are never more needed across the UK, but may I correct the Minister? The Government put forward a fund of £60 million for charities within the devolved authorities, so I would like to know how much the Scottish charities have received from that fund and what representations he has made for its extension, because charities are never more in need.

Iain Stewart: The funding that is given to the Scottish Government does not necessarily have to be used exactly for those purposes. They can supplement that as well out of the general funds that are transferred—the £8.2 billion. I am very happy to look into how that money is being spent, and I refer back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) made about the questions over how the £2 billion has been spent.

Chris Elmore: I join the Minister on behalf of those on this side of the House in praising the voluntary sector and charities across Scotland, which have stepped up to support so many people right across the nation. At the same time, however, charities face an existential financial crisis. The Minister will be aware that a report earlier this year from the Office of the  Scottish Charity Regulator found that a fifth of Scottish charities were facing uncertainty because of poor finances over the next 12 months. With new restrictions now coming in across Scotland in different phases, will the Minister commit to working with the Secretary of State, with Scottish Ministers and, importantly, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that these voluntary sector organisations get any additional funding that they may need to support the people of Scotland during the pandemic?

Iain Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is right, and I have had a number of meetings with the Association of Chief Officers of Scottish Voluntary Organisations and they have an unprecedented leadership challenge. One of them put to me the analogy that they are trying to fix the wings of an aircraft when it is in flight. There is an enormous challenge on all of us, whether in government, in the charities themselves or in the private sector, to work closely together and for us to help them through this and for them to help us to rebuild our economy and society better than when we went into this period.

Economic Support: Covid-19

John Howell: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the economic support available for Scottish businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

Lindsay Hoyle: This question, No. 16, has been withdrawn, so the substantive question will be from David Mundell. Secretary of State to answer.

Alister Jack: Am I answering David Mundell’s question?

Lindsay Hoyle: You are answering the substantive question: No. 16.

Alister Jack: I did not bring that with me, sorry.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us carry on then. If the Secretary of State does not have the answer, it is easy—I call David Mundell.

David Mundell: There are many different ways that the Government can provide economic support to Scottish businesses during covid-19. For the Scotch whisky industry, the biggest help in retaining jobs and supporting its businesses would be for the Government to resolve the US tariffs dispute, rather than escalate it by applying further retaliatory tariffs. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on progress on this vital issue for Scottish businesses and jobs?

Alister Jack: From memory, question 16—it has been withdrawn altogether from the papers I was given this morning—was about transport, and I will say on that—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Secretary of State, the question is on the Order Paper, and I can assure him it is not about transport. Answer the question from David Mundell.

Alister Jack: To answer my right hon. Friend’s question, the Secretary of State for International Trade last night had a Zoom call with MPs from across the House, and I know that she stressed that the UK Government are determined to settle this issue as soon as possible and to mitigate the effects for those who are impacted by it. In short, we continue to raise the issue with the highest levels of the US Administration.

Strengthening the Union

Ben Everitt: What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the Union.

Caroline Ansell: What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the Union.

Simon Jupp: What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the Union.

James Grundy: What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the Union.

Alister Jack: The good news is I did bring this answer with me. This Government have always stressed the importance of the Union. The UK is a family of nations that shares social, cultural and economic ties that together make us far safer, more secure and more prosperous. As we have seen throughout the covid crisis, it is the economic strength of the Union and our commitment to the sharing and pooling of resources that has supported jobs and businesses throughout Scotland. It is the strength of our Union that will enable us to rebuild our economy following the crisis.

Ben Everitt: I am delighted to hear the Secretary of State supports the Union. The Prime Minister’s review into boosting transport links across the country is very welcome. Does the Secretary of State agree that this review into quality transport links will go a long way to levelling up economic opportunity wherever we are in the UK?

Alister Jack: There are no flies on my hon. Friend—he spotted that I am a Unionist and he has been able to highlight the importance of improving transport links. That is why I am so disappointed that the Scottish Government are not engaging in Sir Peter Hendy’s review of connectivity across our United Kingdom. That attitude is letting down the people of Scotland, who would benefit from those improvements.

Caroline Ansell: My great grandfather served in the infantry regiment of the Argyll and Sutherland. Will my right hon. Friend join me in commemorating all those Scottish servicemen who fought in the British Army for the freedom of the United Kingdom and the world, and in thanking servicemen and women today in Scotland who are engaged in our fight against the virus?

Alister Jack: I am more than happy to join my hon. Friend in thanking today’s servicemen and women, and I am sure the whole House will join me in remembering all those who laid down their lives in defence of our country and the freedoms that we enjoy today.

Simon Jupp: I represent a constituency that is geographically distant from Scotland, but I know people from Scotland who have made East Devon their home. They, like me, believe we are stronger together and cherish our precious Union. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK Government’s efforts during the pandemic—not least the furlough scheme and the £8.2 billion to Scottish public services—show that we have a common drive to defeat the virus, whether in Edinburgh or Exeter, and the SNP needs to focus on delivery, not division?

Alister Jack: In the interests of brevity, as it was a very full question, I will say: absolutely, yes.

James Grundy: What measures is the Department taking to strengthen economic ties and promote business opportunities between Scottish communities and English communities such as those in my constituency of Leigh?

Alister Jack: The Union connectivity review that I referred to earlier and the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, will both promote the economic ties that my hon. Friend refers to. They will protect vital trading links and improve transport links.

Pete Wishart: The Secretary of State is doing such a fantastic job of strengthening the Union that support for independence is at a historic high and has been at a sustained majority all year. Saying no to a majority in Scotland is only going to drive support for independence even higher. Apparently, he was only joking when he said that there would be no indyref for 40 years, just after John Major said that there would be two referendums in the next few years. The Secretary of State is renowned for his legendary wit and humour, but the Scottish people are not finding this democracy denial funny anymore. What is the difference between denying a majority in the Trump White House and denying a majority in the Scotland Office?

Alister Jack: That is quite a tenuous link, but I will answer the question. To be quite simple, my belief is that we should stick to the referendum from 2014 and respect it. It was very clear—the SNP said it at the time —that it was a once-in-a-generation referendum. I do not believe that we should go into a process of neverendums, which are divisive, unsettling and bad for jobs in Scotland. We should respect democracy, and that is what I am doing—democracy that was handed out by the Scottish people in 2014.

Philippa Whitford: The Prime Minister described last December’s general election as “once-in-a-generation”, but I hope the Secretary of State is not suggesting that there will not be another one for 40 years. He seems to think that the way to strengthen the Union is by forcing a hard Brexit on Scotland against our will, taking an axe to devolution with the internal market Bill and denying any democratic choice on Scotland’s future until adults like me are dead. On that basis, does he think that the best recipe for a happy marriage is to lock up the wife, take away her chequebook and just keep refusing a divorce?

Alister Jack: No, I think that it is quite straightforward. I think that people should respect democracy, as I said in my previous answer to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). We are respecting democracy. We are acknowledging this is once in a generation; we do not believe Scotland should be thrown on to the uncertainty of neverendums. It is very straight- forward: a generation, by any calculation, is 25 years and, frankly, SNP Members just have to accept that and focus on what matters, which is recovering from this pandemic and us all pulling together.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Ruth Cadbury: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 November.

Boris Johnson: I know the whole House will want to join me in sending our deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, who sadly passed away on Saturday. His leadership had a profound impact on our whole country and across the world. May his memory be a blessing.
This morning, I attended the service at Westminster Abbey to mark the centenary of the tomb of the unknown warrior. Armistice Day allows us to give thanks to all those who have served, and continue to serve, and those who have given their lives in service of this country.

Ruth Cadbury: According to Home Office figures, just 12% of Windrush victims have received compensation and nine people have died waiting. This is two and a half years after the Windrush taskforce was set up. What will the Government do and what will the Prime Minister do both to rectify this injustice and to ensure that no others who have come to the UK to live and work suffer in the same way as the Windrush victims?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. What happened to the Windrush generation was a disgrace and a scandal, and we are doing our best collectively to make amends. I can tell her I have met members of that generation, and this Government are taking steps to accelerate the payments and to make sure that those who are in line with payments are given every opportunity and all the information they need to avail themselves of the compensation that they deserve.

Fiona Bruce: May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks in respect of our servicemen and women, past and present, in protecting our peace?
With regard to our battle against covid, senior Church leaders have this past week issued a call for prayer across our nation. The Prime Minister, I know, is very well aware of the persecution suffered by countless people of faith across the world for wanting to pray and manifest their faith. Will he join me in supporting our Church leaders’ call for prayer and in championing the universal human right of freedom of religion or belief wherever one lives?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed, and I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does to champion that cause. We all know that wherever freedom of belief is under attack, other human rights are under attack as well. We will continue to work closely with like-minded partners to stand up for members of such marginalised communities.

Keir Starmer: May I join the Prime Minister in his comments about Jonathan Sacks? May I also send all our thoughts to those affected by the terrible events in Saudi Arabia this morning? May I welcome the victory of President-elect Biden and Vice-President-elect Harris—a new era of decency, integrity and compassion in the White House? May I also welcome the fantastic news about a possible breakthrough in the vaccine? It is early days, but this will give hope to millions of people that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Today is Armistice Day, and I am sure the whole House will join me in praising the remarkable work of the veterans charities such as Help for Heroes and the Royal British Legion. Like many other charities, Help for Heroes has seen a significant drop in its funding during this pandemic, and it is now having to take very difficult decisions about redundancies and keeping open recovery centres for veterans. So can the Prime Minister commit today that the Government will do whatever they can to make sure our armed forces charities have the support that they need so that they can carry on supporting our veterans?

Boris Johnson: I echo entirely what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says about Help for Heroes; it is a quite remarkable charity and does wonderful things for veterans. In these difficult times, many charities are, of course, finding it tough, and in addition to what the Government are doing to support charities through cutting business rates on their premises and cutting VAT on their shops, I urge everybody wherever possible to make online contributions to charities that are currently struggling.

Keir Starmer: I thank the Prime Minister for his reply. The truth is the Chancellor’s package for forces charities was just £6 million during this pandemic, and that is just not sufficient. May I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider that support on their behalf, because at the same time we have all seen this weekend that the Government can find £670,000 for PR consultants? And that is the tip of the iceberg: new research today shows that the Government have spent at least £130 million of taxpayers’ money on PR companies, and that is in this year alone. Does the Prime Minister think that is a reasonable use of taxpayers’ money?

Boris Johnson: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to the vaccines taskforce, and after days in which the Labour party has attacked the vaccines taskforce, I think it might be in order for him to pay tribute to it for securing 40 million doses. By the way, the expenditure to which he refers was to help to raise awareness of vaccines, to fight the anti-vaxxers and to persuade the people of this country—300,000—to take part in trials without which we cannot have vaccines. So I think he should take it back.

Keir Starmer: Nobody is attacking individuals—everybody is supporting the vaccine—but £130 million, Prime Minister: there is a real question about the way that contracts are being awarded and about basic transparency and accountability. I know the Prime Minister does not like that, but this is not the Prime Minister’s money; it is taxpayers’ money. The Prime Minister may well not know the value of the pound in his pocket, but the people who send us here do, and they expect us to spend it wisely.
Let me illustrate an example of the Government’s lax attitude to taxpayers’ money. Earlier this year, the Government paid about £150 million to a company called Ayanda Capital to deliver face masks. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how many usable face masks were actually provided to NHS workers on the frontline under that contract?

Boris Johnson: We are in the middle of a global pandemic in which this Government have so far secured and delivered 32 billion items of personal protective equipment; and, yes, it is absolutely correct that it has been necessary to work with the private sector and with manufacturers who provide such equipment, some of them more effectively than others, but it is the private sector that in the end makes the PPE, it is the private sector that provides the testing equipment, and it is the private sector that, no matter how much the Labour party may hate it, provides the vaccines and the scientific breakthroughs.

Keir Starmer: The answer is none: not a single face mask—at a cost of £150 million. That is not an isolated example. We already know that consultants are being paid £7,000 a day to work on test and trace, and a company called Randox has been given a contract, without process, for £347 million; that is the same company that had to recall 750,000 unused covid tests earlier this summer on safety grounds.
There is a sharp contrast between the way the Government spray money at companies that do not deliver and their reluctance to provide long-term support to businesses and working people at the sharp end of this crisis. The Chancellor spent months saying that extending furlough was
“not the kind of certainty that British businesses or British workers need”—[Official Report, 24 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 1157]—
only then to do a U-turn at the last minute. Yesterday’s unemployment figures show the cost of that delay: redundancies up by a record 181,000 in the last quarter. What is the Prime Minister’s message to those who have lost their jobs because of the Chancellor’s delay?

Boris Johnson: With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he knows full well that the furlough programme has continued throughout this pandemic. It went right the way through to October; it is now going through to March. It is one of the most generous programmes in the world, with 80% of income supported by this Government and an overall package of £210 billion going in to support jobs, families and livelihoods throughout this country. I think this country can be very proud of the way we have looked after the entire population, and we are going to continue to do so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should bear  in mind that the net effect of those furlough programmes—all the provision that we have made—is disproportionately beneficial for the poorest and neediest in society, which is what one nation Conservatism is all about.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister must know that because the furlough was not extended until the last minute, thousands of people were laid off. The figures tell a different story: redundancies, as I say, at a record high of 181,000; 780,000 off the payroll since March; the Office for National Statistics saying unemployment is rising sharply—so much for putting their arms around everybody. The trouble is that the British people are paying the price for the mistakes of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. If they had handed contracts to companies that could deliver, public money would have been saved. If they had extended furlough sooner, jobs would have been saved. If they had brought in a circuit breaker when the science said so, lives would have been saved.
Let me deal with another mistake. The Chancellor has repeatedly failed to close gaps in support for the self-employed. Millions are affected by this. It is bad enough to have made that mistake in March, but seven months on, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says the scheme remains—its words—
“wasteful and badly targeted for the self-employed”.
The Institute of Directors says:
“Many self-employed…continue to be left out in the cold.”
After seven months and so many warnings, why are the Chancellor and the Prime Minister still failing our self-employed?

Boris Johnson: Unquestionably, this pandemic has been hard on the people of this country, and unquestionably there are people who have suffered throughout the pandemic and people whose livelihoods have suffered, but we have done everything that we possibly can to help. As for the self-employed, 2.6 million of them have received support, at a cost of £13 billion—quite right. We have also, of course, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, uprated universal credit. That will continue until next year. He now champions universal credit, by the way, and calls for its uprating to be extended. He stood on a manifesto to abolish universal credit.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister just doesn’t get it. I know very well that the self-employment income support scheme has been extended, but the Prime Minister must know that that scheme simply does not apply to millions of self-employed people. They have been left out for seven months.
There is a real human cost to this. This week on LBC, I spoke to a self-employed photographer called Chris. He said to me:
“Our…industry has been devastated… Three million of us that have fallen through the cracks… Our businesses are falling—absolutely falling—and crashing each day.”
He asked me to raise that with the Chancellor. I will do the next best thing. What would the Prime Minister say to Chris and millions like him who are desperately waiting for the Chancellor to address this injustice?

Boris Johnson: What I would say to Chris—and what I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to the whole country—is the best way to get his job  working again, the best way to get this country back on its feet, is to continue on the path that we are driving the virus down. It is a week since we entered into the tough autumn measures that we are now in. I am grateful to the people of this country for the sacrifices that they are making, and I am particularly grateful to the people of Liverpool and elsewhere—tens of thousands of people in Liverpool are taking part in the mass testing work that is going on there. It is fantastic news that we now have the realistic prospect of a vaccine.
Science has given us two big boxing gloves, as it were, with which to pummel this virus, but neither of them is capable of delivering a knockout blow on its own. That is why this country needs to continue to work hard, to keep discipline and to observe the measures that we have put in. I am grateful for the support that the Labour party is now giving for those measures. That is the way to do it: hands, face, space; follow the guidance, protect the NHS and save lives.

Laurence Robertson: As we and all countries across the world tackle the pandemic, is it not right that we also have to secure our post-EU future? Are we not doing that by securing help for our rural communities and securing our borders?

Boris Johnson: Absolutely; I thank my hon. Friend. I can tell him that the landmark Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill receives Royal Assent today, thanks to this House, paving the way for the fulfilling of our manifesto commitment to end free movement and have a new, fair points-based immigration system—one of the advantages of leaving the European Union that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) would of course like to reverse.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us head up to Scotland and the leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford.

Ian Blackford: May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister on the death of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks? This being Armistice Day, we commemorate the day 102 years ago on the eleventh hour of the eleventh month when the guns fell silent and all those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in conflict since then. I also want to send our best wishes to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on winning the election in north America. I look forward to the leadership they will show on the issues of climate change and fighting back against covid among other things.
The figures published by the Office for National Statistics yesterday demonstrate what the SNP has been warning about for months: that the UK faces a growing Tory unemployment crisis. It is now beyond doubt that the Chancellor’s last-minute furlough U-turn came far too late for thousands who have already lost their jobs as a result of Tory cuts, delays and dither. UK unemployment has now risen to 4.8%. Redundancies are at a record high and nearly 800,000 fewer people are in employment. To support those who have lost their incomes, will the Prime Minister now commit to making the £20 uplift to universal credit permanent and to extending it to legacy benefits, so that no one—no one, Prime Minister—is left behind?

Boris Johnson: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman, the leader of the Scottish nationalists is now supporting universal credit. He was opposed to it at the last election. Yes, of course that uplift continues until March. I am delighted to say that the furlough scheme is being extended right the way through to March as well. That will support people across our whole United Kingdom, protecting jobs and livelihoods across the whole UK in exactly the way that he and I would both want.

Ian Blackford: May I respectfully say to the Prime Minister that the idea is that he tries to answer the question that has been put to him? It is shameful that the Prime Minister still refuses to give a commitment to the £20 uprating of universal credit. The SNP will continue to demand a permanent U-turn on Tory plans to cut universal credit.
Another group who have been left behind by this Prime Minister are the 3 million people who have been completely excluded from UK Government support. Since the start of this crisis, the Prime Minister has repeatedly refused to lift a finger to help those families. In the run-up to Christmas, those forgotten millions will be among those who are struggling to get by and are worried about their future. Will the Prime Minister finally fix the serious gaps in his support schemes to help the excluded, or will he make it a bitter winter for millions of families across the United Kingdom?

Boris Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman knows, I hope, that we are not only continuing with the uprating of universal credit until next year, but we have invested £210 billion in jobs and livelihoods. We have also just brought forward a winter support package for the poorest and neediest: supporting young people and kids who need school meals, and supporting people throughout our society throughout the tough period of covid, as I think the entire country would expect. That is the right thing to do and we will continue to do it.

Simon Jupp: As we continue to protect the NHS to help to save lives, regional airports are playing a critical role in delivering medical supplies and equipment across the UK, yet at Exeter airport in my constituency overall passenger numbers are at some 5% of normal. Regional airports are facing multibillion-pound business rates bills and they are asking for a payment holiday similar to businesses in retail and hospitality, including supermarket giants. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give East Devon’s aircraft engineers, cabin crew and pilots that the Government will look to temporarily scrap business rates, so that our regional airports can keep the country connected throughout the pandemic?

Boris Johnson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have heard my hon. Friend’s words. I thank him for what he said; he is quite right to champion regional airports and the aviation business. The Bank of England’s covid corporate financing facility is helping to support the airlines’ current liquidity problems, with the sector drawing down £1.8 billion in support. The Department for Transport is also looking at giving bespoke support to particular regional airports to keep them going in these tough times.

Jonathan Edwards: West Wales and the valleys received over €2 billion in direct EU economic investment during the 2014 to 2020 multiannual financial framework. That support will come to an end in a matter of weeks, yet the British Government have yet to publish their alternative proposals despite all the promises of “not a penny less”. When will the Prime Minister level with the people of Carmarthenshire and the rest of Wales about the British Government being about to pick our pockets?

Boris Johnson: On the contrary, the UK Government are continuing to support all parts of the UK. We will now, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have the opportunity to fund projects with our own money, rather than siphoning it through Brussels. The quantum will be identical and, in addition, through the Barnett formula, the UK Government have already given the Welsh Government £2.4 billion in capital funding alone this year.

Imran Ahmad Khan: While we are rightly focused on battling covid, we should not ignore humanitarian injustices and the plight of persecuted minorities. On Remembrance Sunday, 82 year-old Mahboob Ahmad Khan was shot dead, the fourth Ahmadi recently slain in Peshawar. His crime under Pakistani law: to call himself an Ahmadi Muslim, whose creed is love for all, hatred for none. Does my right hon. Friend agree that hatred preached in Pakistan ends up on the streets of Britain and that it is in the interests of our own security that Her Majesty’s Government should make it clear to Pakistan that state-supported persecution must end?

Boris Johnson: I agree passionately with my hon. Friend. I can tell him that that is why the Minister for South Asia and the Commonwealth recently raised this very issue with Pakistan’s Human Rights Minister and we urge the Government of Pakistan to guarantee the fundamental rights of all their citizens.

Ben Lake: Unfortunately, we have recently seen the largest increase in Welsh unemployment for nearly 30 years. The Prime Minister will know that the hospitality and events sectors have been dealt a heavy blow by covid-19, but we cannot forget about the businesses in their supply chains. Many have not been eligible for grant support and, although welcome, bounce-back loans and the furlough scheme do not offer them support to cover running costs through the winter months. Will the Prime Minister therefore raise this matter with the Chancellor and bring forward a package that offers businesses in the supply chain some hope of seeing the spring?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman raises an excellent point. One of the things that we are looking at, together with local authorities and the Welsh tourist authorities, is ways of making sure that we keep a tourist season going throughout the tough winter months.

Alexander Stafford: Christmas is a time for joy and the celebration of hope. In Rother Valley, we have a renowned Christmas scene. From the Christmas festival in Dinnington to Christmas wreath-making in Todwick, the Maltby Lions Santa sleigh ride, carols at All Saints in Aston and even my  new annual Christmas card competition, there is something for everyone in Rother Valley. In the spirit of Christmas and giving, will the Prime Minister assure me that families and friends will be reunited and able to celebrate this most important, happy and holy occasion, as we usually do?

Boris Johnson: All I can say is that the more intensively we together follow the rules and the more we follow the guidance in this tough period leading up to 2 December, the bigger the chance collectively we will have of as normal a Christmas as possible and getting things open in time for Christmas as well.

James Murray: On Sunday, a constituent emailed me about the track and trace system. Her family had received multiple calls asking for the same information and there was confusion, as the operative admitted that they were struggling with London postcodes and local school names. Last week, the former Health Secretary and Conservative Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), said:
“Centralised contact tracing is always going to be less effective than a”
localised model. Will the Prime Minister now admit that the current outsourced model has been a waste of time and taxpayers’ money?

Boris Johnson: We are looking into the issue of repeat calls, but to say that the test and trace system has been a waste of time and money, which I think is what I heard the hon. Member say—I could not disagree more. It has enabled us to locate where the disease is surging, to take appropriate measures and to allow people in huge numbers to get tested. More people have been tested in this country than in any other country in Europe. The PCR tests that NHS Test and Trace is conducting are of real value in fighting the disease, and now we are rolling out the lateral flow rapid turnaround tests as well.

Julian Sturdy: With yesterday’s positive news on the covid vaccine and the roll-out of mass testing, and as York’s virus figures continue to fall well below the level at which we were put into tier 2, can the Prime Minister give York some hope of sustaining our great city by clearly outlining the criteria under which from 2 December we can escape immediately into tier 1? Will he also urge York council to take up the Government’s offer of mass testing?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed I urge York council and councils across the land to take up the offer of mass lateral flow testing—it is a very exciting possibility. It is, as I said, one of the boxing gloves we hope to wield to pummel this disease into submission—the other is the prospect of a vaccine—and that is what we will do continuously throughout the weeks and months ahead. But I must stress that the way to get ourselves in the best position to achieve that is to make the current restrictions work so that we can come out well, back into the tiers on 2 December.

Alistair Carmichael: The Prime Minister will doubtless recall meeting my constituent Ronnie Norquoy on board his crab boat   Carvela when he visited Stromness and Orkney in July. I know Mr Norquoy told the Prime Minister about the problems caused by the Migration Advisory Committee classing deck hands as unskilled labour. Since that conversation—which must have landed quite well, because he was allowed back on to dry land safely —the Migration Advisory Committee has changed its advice so that deck hands are now regarded as skilled labour for whom visas can be issued. The Home Secretary, unfortunately, refuses to implement that advice. Will he put the Home Secretary straight on this one, please? Get it sorted.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is a subject in which I have a keen interest, because I had a wonderful morning on that crab boat where there were fantastic, prodigious quantities of crabs that, as I recollect, were being sold to China. I will make sure that the Home Secretary is immediately seized of the matter and that we take it forward. That is one of the things that we are now able to do thanks to taking back control of our immigration system, which, alas, his party opposed for so long and would reverse if it could.

Neil O'Brien: I strongly welcome the introduction of the National Security and Investment Bill today. Does the Prime Minister agree that when countries trample human rights at home and threaten our allies abroad, they should not expect to be able to buy up strategically important industries in this country with no scrutiny, not least when they refuse such investments in their own countries?

Boris Johnson: Yes. One of the many merits of the excellent conversation I had yesterday with President-elect Joe Biden was that we were strongly agreed on the need once again for the United Kingdom and the United States to stand together and stick up for our values around the world: to stick up for human rights, to stick up for global free trade, to stick up for NATO and to work together in the fight against climate change. It was refreshing, I may say, to have that conversation, and I look forward to many more.

Angela Eagle: The Prime Minister spoke for many of us when he took a call yesterday to congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris on their emphatic win in the US presidential election, so does the Prime Minister now have any advice for his erstwhile best friend, President Trump, whose continuing refusal to accept the result is both embarrassing for him and dangerous for American democracy?

Boris Johnson: I had, and have, a good relationship with the previous President. I do not resile from that—it is the duty of all British Prime Ministers to have a good relationship with the White House—but I am delighted to find the many areas in which are the incoming Biden-Harris Administration are able to make common cause with us. In particular, it was extremely exciting to talk to President-elect Biden about what he wants to do with the COP26 summit next year, in which the UK is leading the world in driving down carbon emissions and tackling climate change.

Chris Clarkson: This Armistice Day, restrictions mean that we cannot mark the occasion with services as we normally would.   However, in Heywood and Middleton, veterans associations are following the guidance to mark the day in a covid-safe way. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in praising them, the Royal British Legion and, indeed, all those across the United Kingdom who are doing their best to ensure that we can pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice?

Boris Johnson: Yes indeed. It was really impressive to see the way the Royal British Legion organised covid-secure memorials across the country in the way that it did. As we salute our veterans, I just want to remind the House that we have launched a new railcard for our veterans and their families that will entitle them to substantial reductions in rail fares, and that we are introducing a national insurance break for employers of veterans in their first year of employment.

Kate Hollern: Every day, there is a new story about dodgy contracts signed by this Government. Research by Tussell, the data provider, shows that the Government take an average of two and a half months to publish covid-related contracts, exceeding the legal limit of 30 days. Will the Prime Minister commit to publishing all contracts within the legal limit, and does he accept that the failure to address this scandal affects his Government’s awarding of public contracts?

Boris Johnson: Of course we publish all contracts, and quite right. I would just respectfully remind the hon. Lady, as I reminded the Leader of the Opposition earlier, that it is absolutely necessary in a massive global pandemic to work with those in the private sector, not to scorn them or despise them, and to understand that it is they who make the PPE and the tests. Indeed, it is thanks to the researches of giant conglomerates—which Labour would break up if it could—that we have the possibility of a vaccine.

Andrew Selous: On Armistice Day, as we remember those who gave their lives for our country and those who still serve, will the Prime Minister give a positive response to the “Living in our shoes: understanding the needs of UK Armed Forces families” report on making life better for our armed forces families? These wonderful people put up with more separation, moving of family homes and worry about the safety of their loved ones than anyone else, and looking after them should be a national priority.

Boris Johnson: Our armed services simply could not function without the support of their families, and I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing to raise this issue and for the comprehensive piece of research that he refers to. We are making good progress on increasing childcare provision for armed services families and on our support for employment of partners of members of the armed services.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for a few minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Covid-19 Lockdown: Homelessness and Rough Sleepers

Thangam Debbonaire: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on his plans to prevent homelessness and protect rough sleepers during the second national lockdown.

Kelly Tolhurst: As we look ahead to the winter months, it is vital that we work together to prevent increases in homelessness and rough sleeping. The Government have set out unprecedented support on this issue, dedicating over £700 million to tackling homelessness and rough sleeping this year alone. Our work on rough sleeping has been shown not only to be world leading but to have saved hundreds of lives. We are dedicated to continuing to protect vulnerable people in this period of restrictions and through the winter months.
We used the summer to work with local authorities on individual local plans for the coming months. Last week, the Prime Minister announced the Protect programme —the next step in our ongoing, targeted support for rough sleepers. That will provide a further £15 million, ensuring that support is in place for areas that need it most, and addressing the housing and health challenges for rough sleepers during this period of national restrictions. That is on top of the £10 million cold weather fund, available to all councils to provide rough sleepers with safe accommodation over the coming months. That means that all local areas will be eligible for support this winter. It builds on the success of the ongoing Everyone In campaign in September. We have successfully supported over 29,000 people, with over 10,000 people in emergency accommodation. Nearly 19,000 people have been provided with settled accommodation or move-on support. We continue to help to move people on from emergency accommodation with the Next Steps accommodation programme.
On 17 September, we announced NSAP allocations to local authorities, to pay for immediate support and to ensure that people do not return to the streets, and £91.5 million was allocated to 274 councils across England. On 29 October, we announced allocations to local partners to deliver long-term move-on accommodation. More than 3,300 new long-term homes for rough sleepers across the country have been approved, subject to due diligence, backed by more than £150 million. We are committed to tackling homelessness, and firmly believe that no one should be without a roof over their head.
Throughout the pandemic, we have established an unprecedented package of support to protect renters, which remains in place. That includes legislating through the Coronavirus Act 2020 on delays as to when landlords can evict tenants and a six-month stay on possession proceedings in court. We have quickly and effectively introduced more than £9 billion of measures in 2020-21 that benefit those facing financial disruption during the current situation. The measures include increasing universal and working tax credit by £1,040 a year for 12 months and significant investment in local housing allowance of  nearly £1 billion. As further support for renters this winter, we have asked bailiffs not to carry out evictions during national restrictions in England, except in the most serious of circumstances. As the pandemic evolves, we will continue working closely with local authorities, the sector and across Government to support the most vulnerable from this pandemic. These measures further demonstrate our commitment to assist the most vulnerable in society.

Thangam Debbonaire: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. The Minister’s words and the Prime Minister’s order last week to stay home will ring hollow for people with no home. In March, the Government told councils and charities that they should try to bring rough sleepers in, and the extraordinary effort prevented thousands of infections, more than 1,000 hospital admissions and 266 deaths. But now the Government’s rough sleeping tsar is no longer in post and she has warned that we are facing a “perfect storm of awfulness”. Many of those brought off the streets have returned and thousands more are newly homeless, with a record high 50% increase in young people sleeping rough since last year in London alone.
What has changed since March? It is colder, and the cold weather fund is lower than it was last year. So can the Minister tell the House why the Government have lowered their ambition? Their plan provides neither the leadership nor the funding to ensure all rough sleepers have a covid-secure place; £15 million in funding will be given not to all councils, but only to the 10 with the highest rough sleeping rates. Seventeen health and homelessness organisations wrote to the Prime Minister to warn against the use of night shelters as not covid-safe. Why have the Government refused to publish the Public Health England advice on this decision? The plan makes no reference to people with no recourse to public funds. Instead there is a rule change so that rough sleeping will lead to deportation. Does the Minister agree that it is immoral for people to be deported for sleeping rough?
On Armistice Day, will the Minister ensure that the Government record whether homeless people have a service record, so that we can get an accurate picture of the scale and need of those who have served our country?
Finally, the homelessness crisis is the result of 10 years of Tory failure, so will the Minister now commit to abolishing section 21 evictions, as the Government said they would, to prevent a further rise in homelessness, and invest in the support and social housing we need so that we can genuinely end rough sleeping for good?

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I hope she recognises, and I think she did at the beginning, that this Government have put £700 million into homelessness and rough sleeping support this year alone. That is unprecedented support, and it is decisive action that this Government took in dealing with the covid crisis. Although I strongly object to the fact that many have returned to the streets, we were working on this plan in the summer with local authorities in order to work out what the next steps would be after the Everyone In programme. As I outlined in my opening answer, more than £266 million is being provided to local authorities in order to provide move-on and next-step accommodation, with more than £150 million of that invested in long-term support and accommodation for rough sleepers.
To pick up on the point about the winter allowance being lower than last year, this must be taken in the context of the unprecedented amount of funding that the Government have provided in this area, in order to protect those individuals who were at threat of homelessness and rough sleeping throughout the pandemic. Indeed, a £10 million winter fund is available to all local authorities throughout the country, but it is right that the £15 million fund that was announced last year—the Protect programme—is focused on the areas in which there is the most need. We are working intensively, not only with those first-wave initial boroughs with the highest level of rough sleeping but in collaboration with all local authorities throughout the United Kingdom, in order to understand the challenges they face and the needs they have.
On the point about no recourse to public funds, I would like to make the hon. Lady aware that the rules of eligibility for immigration status, including for those with no recourse to public funds, has not changed. Local authorities are able to use their judgment when assessing the support that can lawfully be provided in relation to those individuals and their individual needs: this is already happening, as it does with extreme weather and where there is a potential risk to life. Local authorities provide basic support for care needs that do not solely arise from destitution, whether for migrants who have severe health problems or for families where the wellbeing of children is involved. Also, it is just not true that we are deporting individuals who are rough sleeping.
I will also pick up on the point about veterans. I am very pleased to be standing here on Armistice Day, and am pleased that the hon. Lady has highlighted the plight of our veterans. Our veterans play a vital role in keeping our country safe, and we are committed to ensuring that we are able to provide them with the support they need to adjust back into civilian life. The duty to refer in the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 states that public authorities are required to, with individual consent, refer
“former members of the regular armed forces”
to their local housing associations. There are a number of support services available, including Veterans’ Gateway and online, web and telephone resources for veterans, through which they can access a housing specialist who has up-to-date information on any vacancies that are available. In June of this year, we announced new measures to ensure that access to social housing is improved for members of our armed forces.
Mr Speaker, our Protect programme will protect vulnerable individuals from the threat of rough sleeping during the restriction process and into the winter, and tackle some of the health issues they are experiencing.

Mary Robinson: The Everyone In programme ensured that homeless people and rough sleepers had a roof over their head during the pandemic, and I welcome the Protect programme initiative. However, it is vital that our solutions are also long-term and sustainable. I welcomed the roll-out of the three-year Housing First pilot in Greater Manchester, and the recent announcement of 3,300 units of move-on accommodation for rough sleepers. Would my hon. Friend also consider bringing forward future funding allocations  so that local authorities, mental health charities and agencies that are able to offer wraparound support can have the certainty they need to ensure the success of these initiatives?

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the wraparound services that organisations within local authorities provide to some of those individuals who are experiencing complex issues, such as substance misuse and mental health concerns. I am grateful that she highlighted the Housing First pilot projects, and we are encouraging and working with local authorities to get individuals who need such support into that programme.
I will also work hard to make sure that we are able to develop and work with local authorities to assist them to provide the local services and wraparound support that those individuals need. It is not just a home they need; they need the support services around them, and I am determined to be able to do that.

David Linden: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on securing this urgent question. This feels like groundhog day, with the Government yet again in the spotlight for their decision to withdraw prematurely the protections and support for the most vulnerable people during a second wave of covid. In recent weeks, they have had to U-turn on providing free school meals and on extending furlough. I rather suspect that, quite soon, they will have to U-turn on providing more support for people who have been left homeless.
Thankfully, in Scotland, we have a Government with a bit more foresight than this bungling British Government, who reek of incompetence and chaos every single day. The SNP Government in Scotland have extended the ban on evictions until March, and we have committed to looking to extend that further to September if the evidence shows a clear need. Will the Minister do likewise?
I am appalled by the reports that the British Government plan to deport non-UK nationals who are sleeping rough. That is a totally inhumane policy, devoid of any compassion and fairness, even by this Conservative Government’s standards. Will they now urgently reinstate the pause on asylum evictions so that communities and individuals who we know are at greater risk of covid-19 are not put at increased risk?
Finally, has the Minister’s Department ever received any advice from Public Health England or, indeed, health directors about the risks to black and minority ethnic people being left homeless? If so, will she publish it? If not, why has she not commissioned it?

Kelly Tolhurst: I respect the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but he is completely incorrect in relation to this Government’s ongoing support for rough sleepers during the pandemic. We carried out an unprecedented and world-leading programme in Everyone In, we worked with local authorities constructively and intensively to develop programmes for the continuation of that support through Next Steps and Move On, and we secured accommodation. This Protect programme is the next step within that, and it is the Government taking quick action for what is now required within the restricted period and into the winter fund.
We announced the winter fund only a couple of weeks ago, and now we are on the Protect programme, so it is absolutely incorrect and completely wrong to suggest that this Government have not been taking the issue seriously and have not put the resources where they are needed. I have been determined over recent weeks, as the Minister, to make sure we have local authority by local authority checks on what is happening, looking at the local interactions on the ground.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) is categorically incorrect to say that we are deporting EU nationals who are sleeping rough. That is not what is happening, as he knows. In actual fact, we have been working with local authorities on the support and offer they can give to immigrants with no recourse to public funds at local level. Quite rightly, my colleagues in the Home Office and I are working through many issues that affect a number of different people.
I must also point out that all these individuals are different. Every individual has specific needs, and it is right that we work intensively with local authorities to make sure those individual needs are considered.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have a lot of people who need to get in, and we have spent 15 minutes on the first three questions. We need to pick it up.

Mark Pawsey: I welcome the measures and the very significant funding that the Minister has announced today. Does she agree that it is important to take the same kind of approach as that taken by Rugby Borough Council through its preventing homelessness and improving lives programme? That has made a tremendous difference to local families at risk of homelessness through early intervention by a dedicated support team, working with those who are vulnerable to prepare a plan to avoid a crisis situation later.

Kelly Tolhurst: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is by the good practice of councils such as Rugby Borough Council and programmes of that nature that they are able to work with those families and individuals before there is a need for them to sleep rough or become homeless—it is prevention. We know that since we implemented the Homelessness Reduction Act, that has had a significant impact in many parts of the country. I am pleased that we are determined and committed to make sure we implement that even further and work with local authorities to get better results.

Clive Betts: First, congratulations are due on the efforts that were made to get rough sleepers off the streets from March onwards. Great work was done by councils with voluntary organisations and with good support financially from the Government as well. The real pressure on councils now, I am told by my own city of Sheffield, is from people presenting as homeless from the private rented sector. An increase has led Sheffield City Council, which is very good at dealing with these matters, to have 80 families now in hotels and another 200 in temporary accommodation. That will cost the council around £500,000 extra in this financial year. If dealing with homelessness has to be a priority for councils, which certainly it   should be, will the Minister make it a priority for Government to make sure that councils have the extra resources they need directly to continue delivering the services that people in the private rented sector will need in the coming, very trying months?

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank the hon. Member for his comments and articulation of the work that has been done by the Government and many local authorities and the voluntary and charitable sector in the covid-19 pandemic. He is absolutely right that we need to monitor and make sure we are working intensively with local authorities to understand the needs and the challenges. That is why we are working with local authorities to provide plans, that is why we have put in the Next Steps funding, to provide that Move On and Next Steps accommodation support. We will continue that work through the winter and evaluate any impacts that we are seeing through the covid pandemic. We need to bear in mind that we have also provided councils with over £6 billion in funding to deal with some of the issues that are coming out of the covid pandemic.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment and on attending the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness within days and answering our questions. I also congratulate the Government on a brilliant job in pulling rough sleepers off the streets and putting them into secure accommodation. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the problem now is that every case of homelessness is a unique one. Many people who have been rough sleeping have physical and mental health problems, and they are also probably addicted to drink, drugs or other substances, so it is vital that we roll out the Housing First initiative from the pilot sites throughout the country and also fully fund my Homelessness Reduction Act when the funding for it comes to an end. Will she therefore commit to rolling out Housing First across the country and to ensuring that local authorities are fully funded for their duties under my Act?

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and it was a pleasure to attend the APPG. I also thank him for his work in this area, for which he is a passionate advocate. Housing First is a great pilot, and we have continued to make sure that we can get individuals through those schemes, even during the pandemic. We are working with those sites to make sure that we can maximise that funding and that pilot to get the data and information. I am very supportive of the Housing First programme, and I would very much like to extend it. That is something that we will be working on in Government. I am committed to making sure that the Homelessness Reduction Act is implemented fully, and we will have further discussions about the funding to be able to deliver on that.

Ruth Cadbury: A street homelessness reduction programme is not world leading if the numbers sleeping rough on our streets are rising. It is shocking that the number of young people sleeping rough on our streets is now at a record high. What will the Minister do to ensure that homelessness prevention services offer appropriate support to young people with particular needs, such as young prison leavers?

Kelly Tolhurst: I refute the assumption that rough sleeping numbers are increasing because of the action taken during the pandemic. If we look at the snapshot, we see that in actual fact at September there was a significant reduction in rough sleeping compared with last year. We have been working hard with local authorities in order that everyone who had been brought on to the Everyone In scheme has stayed in emergency accommodation or moved on to Next Steps accommodation. We are working hard to make sure that those numbers are reducing.
The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point about young people, their particular needs and the threat of becoming homeless. I am working with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice on how we can further support offenders. I have a particular interest in young people and care leavers, and we are investigating what other measures we can put in place to support them when they are at threat of homelessness.

Tom Randall: I welcome the Government’s commitment to £311,000 for the borough of Gedling for local secure-accommodation schemes for people at risk of sleeping on the street. Does my hon. Friend agree that this funding is a significant step forward towards fulfilling our manifesto commitment to end rough sleeping by 2024? Will she join me in thanking all those in Gedling who have worked so hard to get vulnerable people into safe, secure accommodation?

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank my hon. Friend for his comment and pay tribute to those not only in his constituency but throughout the country who are working and have worked incredibly hard over the summer and through the pandemic to make sure that those individuals have had the help and support they require. He is absolutely right that this funding is part of our next steps to reach our target and make sure that we tackle some of the issues and develop the accommodation to house some of the most vulnerable in our society.

Florence Eshalomi: I am sure the Minister would agree that a number of homelessness charities have warned that tens of thousands of young people have been made homeless since the start of the pandemic. Many of these young people work in hospitality, so they have not had a job for many months. They are struggling to support themselves financially and make up the bulk of people in insecure accommodation. The Government’s decision to bring forward the eviction ban was welcome, but it is not working, so will the Minister outline what steps the Government will take to ensure that the ban is properly enforced? The Minister said she would work with bailiffs to stop the evictions, but the reality on the ground is that that is not happening. What concrete steps will there be to protect people from enforcement?

Kelly Tolhurst: The hon. Lady highlights the plight of young people and the particular challenges that they face during the pandemic because of the types of work and sectors they are involved in. It is true that we have placed a ban on evictions and, before the announcement of the restrictions for this month, evictions were not taking place in areas in tier 3. That is obviously the case for this month, and we are also saying that no evictions should be taking place from 11 December into January. We are working with our colleagues in the MOJ, but I  must highlight the fact that we have given a six-month stay on those proceedings and only the most egregious cases will be taken forward. We will keep that under review, as the House would imagine, and make sure that we monitor it. If the hon. Lady is referring to particular circumstances, I would be interested to see the detail and I will happily communicate with her directly in respect of any individual circumstances.

Richard Holden: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment? The Rochester by-election feels like a lifetime ago.
The Government have a golden opportunity, having supported 29,000 people this year, to achieve their ambition of ending rough sleeping by the end of the Parliament. Will my hon. Friend commit to ensuring not only that those who have been helped will continue to get support, but that anyone at risk in the coming months will have the support that they need?

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said and it is a pleasure to be answering his question. He is absolutely right. Throughout the pandemic, we have been working with local authorities on an individual basis to understand the needs and challenges that are driving homelessness within those areas. I am committed to doing exactly that to make sure that we understand all those individual circumstances that are creating demands in different parts of the country. We are developing practices and policies to ensure that we can reach our commitment of ending rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament and of significantly reducing it.

Tim Farron: Simply asking bailiffs not to physically remove desperate people who cannot afford to pay their rent until 11 January will not allow the Secretary of State to keep his promise that no one will lose their home due to a drop in income because of covid. How he could keep that promise would be, for example, to raise local housing allowance so that nobody finds that it is less than the rent they owe. Given that a third of those who are excluded are also private renters, he could also make sure that those people who have been excluded from financial support since March are no longer excluded and are given the support they need. Finally, given that the Government are in the mood for rushing through legislation, why do they not keep their manifesto promise and scrap section 21 evictions, and do it now?

Kelly Tolhurst: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but, as I have outlined, we have asked bailiffs to pause evictions over the Christmas period and that is something that we will monitor and keep under review. It is absolutely right that we have taken this action, and the Secretary of State took it quickly and swiftly. We are still committed to abolishing section 21, but legislation must be balanced and considered to achieve the right outcomes for the sector, and we will keep those under review. The Government will continue to take decisive action, as they have done at all stages of the pandemic, and as I have done today in outlining our Protect programme.

Antony Higginbotham: Our veterans have given so much in the service of this country and it is vital that we ensure that not a single one ends up on  the streets. Will the Minister therefore reassure me and my constituents who care deeply about this that veterans continue to have priority need to keep them off the streets and that the funding provided by this Government means that if someone finds themselves in hard times this winter, local authorities have not only the duty, but the resources to give them the home that they deserve?

Kelly Tolhurst: My hon. Friend is right to highlight again the vital role that our veterans have played in keeping this country safe. I am sure that everyone across this House feels, as I do, a great sadness and deep concern for those veterans who face hard times and are in very difficult circumstances. They have priority when it comes to the reduction of homelessness and will continue to do so. We will continue to work with our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that those veterans can get access to the support and services that they need to continue with their lives.

Rachel Hopkins: The Children’s Commissioner has raised concern about the almost 130,000 children in England who spent the first lockdown in temporary accommodation, where poor conditions made it difficult to study, play and self-isolate. Why does the Minister think that there has been a 78% increase in homeless children since 2010?

Kelly Tolhurst: The hon. Lady asks about families and children in temporary accommodation. I, too, have concerns about any families and young people having to live their lives in temporary accommodation. As I have outlined, that is why this Government are investing in the Move On programme and the Next Steps accommodation programme. We are also committed to investing long-term in our housebuilding programme, and in affordable and social rented homes. I totally understand the pressures and challenges for young people in insecure homes, and it is something that this Government and I are determined to resolve.

Edward Leigh: On a recent visit to YMCA Lincolnshire in Gainsborough, I was briefed on the excellent work done for homeless people in Lincoln at the charity’s Nomad Centre. But when I talked to the chief executive this morning, she told me that her main worry is not so much the level of Government support, but whether it is trickling down from local government to charities quickly enough. That leads me to a wider point, which I suppose is also a Conservative one: in a pandemic we always think that the state can do everything, but we should really be empowering and supporting charities.

Kelly Tolhurst: We are working with local authorities to ensure that the support is trickling down to exactly where it is needed. We are working intensively with local authorities on plans for how that money will be spent, and on the impact on the ground. If my right hon. Friend has any further details, I will happily take up this issue. Indeed, if any Member across the House has any particular local issues, I will take them up and investigate further. It is true that this Government have taken unprecedented action to tackle rough sleeping and homelessness during the pandemic, and I remain committed to continuing that work.

Ian Byrne: After speaking with ACORN Liverpool and local volunteers such as Councillor Sarah Morton who are out on the ground every night in Liverpool helping the homeless, I would like to ask about one of their many concerns right now. The enforced evictions guidance has no basis in law. It does not protect against bailiffs, despite the Government saying that they have asked bailiffs to hold fire, and people are living in fear of eviction during this lockdown. The only way to ban evictions is through legislation, as with the ban between March and September. Will the Minister commit to such legislation and consider increasing funding for local authority discretionary housing payments, which are a vital resource in supporting early intervention and preventing homelessness?

Kelly Tolhurst: The Government have invested heavily in support for homelessness, particularly through the rough sleeping initiative. Liverpool is part of Housing First, which is one of the pilot projects to help rough sleepers, who have multiple complex needs. I hope that the numbers of people moving into that pilot will soon increase in Liverpool. The hon. Gentleman mentions an important point about evictions. It is true that there is a six-month stay on possession proceedings in court to 30 September, and that only the most egregious cases will be taken forward, such as those involving antisocial behaviour and crime. We are committed to that and have made it clear that we do not expect any evictions to take place. If we need to take further action, I am sure that we will find the tools to do so.

Chris Loder: Is it not just so sad when we see homelessness and rough sleeping on our streets? One reason that I was so proud to stand as a Conservative party candidate at the last general election was our commitment to eradicate rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament. Homelessness is often seen as an urban issue, but it is very much a rural one as well. Conservative-led Dorset Council has reduced rough sleeping, though, by 39% up until 2019. I suggest to the shadow Secretary of State that maybe she asks the same questions of her own Labour-run Bristol City Council, where homelessness has increased by 20%—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. First, the question is too long. Secondly, it is not for the Opposition to answer the questions; it is for the Minister. Don’t take the Minister’s job away—it is not fair to her.

Kelly Tolhurst: You will have to excuse me, Mr Speaker; I fell down the stairs yesterday, so I am struggling to do the bobbing up and down.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would like to praise the work of Dorset Council, which has been able to continue to reduce rough sleeping. We hope that we will be able to share information with colleagues in other areas to ensure that, where there is great practice and local authorities are taking great steps to reduce rough sleeping and homelessness, the lessons are learned throughout the country. We learnt a lot through the Everyone In programme, and I hope that those lessons will help us to develop policies.

Lisa Cameron: As chair of the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group, I have been  contacted by Dogs on the Streets, an excellent charity that cares for homeless people who have dogs and are sleeping on the streets. The charity tells me that it is often very difficult for homeless people who are sleeping rough to be admitted into accommodation if they have a pet, particularly a dog. Will the Minister meet me and Dogs on the Streets to talk about the available options? Pets are often a lifeline for people, and we must be extremely compassionate and ensure that those who are compassionate to pets are not left behind on the streets.

Kelly Tolhurst: I will happily meet the hon. Lady to discuss that. She has highlighted an issue that affects not only people sleeping rough but those who are at threat of being made homeless. It transcends the two categories, so I would be happy to discuss it further.

Imran Ahmad Khan: In December 2019, a report outlined that 216 individuals were being housed in short-term shelters in the Wakefield district. Prior to covid, homelessness and rough sleeping in the district had risen sharply, raising concerns about the safety and wellbeing of those who suffer this plight. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to increase the number of homes available for people who are currently homeless as part of the Government’s ambition to end rough sleeping by 2024?

Kelly Tolhurst: The Government are investing more than £150 million in permanent accommodation, delivering 3,300 units, to give an asset to the country that will provide properties for individuals who are sleeping rough and who are then able to come into the system. That is an amazing step forward. It is the biggest investment in this kind of housing since the early ’90s, and I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to make that point.

Tony Lloyd: The Home Office immigration rules published on 22 October make it crystal clear that among the reasons that would normally lead to a refusal of leave to remain in the United Kingdom is failure by the person to accommodate themselves or their dependants without recourse to public funds. Any provision of accommodation for the homeless would be recourse to public funds. My question for the Minister is very simple: what is the advice—be kicked out by the Home Office or freeze on the streets?

Kelly Tolhurst: As I have already outlined, those who have no recourse to public funds do work with local authorities. Local authorities already assess those individuals who are in need and make decisions on whether they can lawfully provide support within that area and for those individuals’ needs. It is simply not true to say that we will be removing individuals on the grounds that they are sleeping rough. It is absolutely right that we continue to work with that cohort, as well as with the charities and voluntary organisations across the country that are working with those individuals to establish pathways and provide help with regard to the EU settlement scheme. That work will continue, and I am happy to have further conversations with the hon. Gentleman about that.

Shaun Bailey: I commend my hon. Friend for the work she has done in tackling homelessness and rough sleeping, but it has been the west midlands that has led the way in this fight, under the leadership of our Mayor, Andy Street, and his homelessness taskforce, which has seen year-on-year decreases in the number of people rough sleeping. Can she reaffirm that she will indeed work with the West Midlands Combined Authority and our Mayor, Andy Street, to ensure that the lessons they have learned during this process can be carried through to Government, so that we can finally, once and for all, fulfil that manifesto commitment and end rough sleeping?

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank my hon. Friend and, yes, I totally will. I have already met Andy Street to discuss the issues within the area. I am very grateful for the work that he and others have been leading, such as Jean Templeton from Saint Basils, who has been doing a tremendous job up there, and for the leadership of young people in that area. I look forward to continuing to work with all parts of the country to achieve this ambition.

Sam Tarry: In 2019, one in 46 people in Redbridge, which Ilford South is part of, were homeless. That is a shocking statistic. While recent funding is obviously very welcome, I wonder if we can have a situation where I do not have to walk outside Ilford Exchange or outside my constituency office and see once again the many cardboard cities, which so miraculously disappeared, literally in a week, once the Government decided to act and house those homeless people and rough sleepers. Could the Minister ensure that, once lockdown ends, they will uphold their commitment to permanently ending rough sleeping?

Kelly Tolhurst: Actually, I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue in his constituency. It is true, and I am sure I speak for everyone across the House, that every one of us really feels sadness and regret when we see any individual sleeping rough in a tent, a box or whatever. It is just not satisfactory. That is why this Government have committed to ending rough sleeping, and why we have put in this unprecedented level of support to achieve that goal. My challenge is to keep working with those local authorities to deliver on that promise.

Greg Smith: I welcome the funding that my hon. Friend has outlined for councils, including over £1.6 million for Buckinghamshire Council to provide accommodation for people at risk of rough sleeping. Can she confirm how many additional such homes the Government intend to fund by the end of this Parliament?

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank my hon. Friend and I am glad that we were able to allocate funding to Buckinghamshire to deliver on those programmes. At the moment—this is our first tranche, obviously—we are delivering 3,300 homes by the end of March 2021 and that is within our commitment to deliver over 6,000. We will continue to work, as I keep repeating—I am sorry, Mr Speaker—with local authorities, because we have to be very clear that each individual area is very different. The drivers, challenges and needs in those areas are so different, as are the needs of the individuals. It is so important that, when  we are announcing these things and making policy, we are making sure we are delivering policy that does actually achieve the ambitions we want to achieve.

Barry Sheerman: No one could accuse this Minister of being heartless or uncaring. I know her to be a woman of great integrity. However, I would put to her that her Government have been in power for a long time now and we still have this real problem of poverty—family poverty—stalking our land. The report by Anne Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner, this morning shows the link between homelessness, rough sleeping and the dreadful way we treat children in care in this country. It is all joined up and there are some common reasons, and I think her Government and her Department should look at that too.

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very kind comments about me. I always find him to be very compassionate as well. He makes a valid point about the impact that homelessness and poverty can have on young children and particularly children who are leaving care. This is an area that I personally am very passionate about—young people and care leavers. It is true to say that this Government are working across Government. I am working with colleagues across Departments in order to find solutions and develop policies to tackle that and deliver on our ambition.

Nickie Aiken: I commend the Minister for the outstanding work she is doing in her new portfolio. The Passage, a charity based in my constituency working with her Department on the Home for Good model, has seen many people being paired with a mentor in the community that they have been resettled in. That has had great success in sustaining tenancies and preventing a return to the streets. Does she agree that it is investment in these types of programmes for preventive work that makes lasting change in the lives of people coming off the streets and that it should continue to be supported?

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has done in this area and the passion that she has in working with me and the Department to tackle this issue. She is absolutely right. It is so important that we are working with local authorities and that money is going to organisations to develop programmes to help with prevention, to deliver support and to provide the mentoring that is so valuable. It is all very well for me as a Minister to stand here today and say what we are doing, but people who have had real-life experience and understand what the reality is are able to impart that and then hold the hand of those individuals who are affected as they navigate the system. That is so invaluable.

James Murray: In a letter to the Secretary of State in June about rough sleepers during covid-19, community organisations, faith leaders and Ealing Council wrote:
“Without question, the hardest group to support under the current framework is those with no recourse to public funds.”
The Secretary of State’s announcement last week made it clear that the new Protect programme funding was there to ensure that
“everyone sleeping rough on our streets”
has
“somewhere safe to go”.
Could the Minister therefore confirm whether this funding can be used to help those sleeping rough who have no recourse to public funds?

Kelly Tolhurst: The rules on eligibility to immigration status have not changed, including those on no recourse to public funds. It is down to local authorities to use their judgment in assessing the support that they can lawfully give to the individuals. This does already happen. We were very clear to local authorities in May that, under Next Steps, they were to carry out individual assessments of people who were rough sleeping and take decisions on who they would provide support for. Part of that was providing accommodation to vulnerable people.

Gagan Mohindra: I welcome the Everyone In plan and last week’s announcement of the £15 million Protect programme. This morning, I had the opportunity to speak to the new chief executive of Dacorum Borough Council, Claire Hamilton, and she too welcomes the additional funding provided by this Government. However, the concern she wants me to raise with the Minister is that, in two-tier areas like mine, South West Hertfordshire, the money is given to Hertfordshire County Council. Could she use her good offices to ensure that the money is given to the frontline as quickly as possible?

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I will use my position to make sure that that money is being targeted at and provided in the areas where it is actually needed. This funding and this package is all about being able to target work intensively with local authorities. This is an offer to all Members who have a particular issue at a local level. I am always happy to take that up with local authorities and to have further discussions on their behalf.

Meg Hillier: I welcome the Minister to her post. I think she is the 12th Minister in this position in the past decade. Her enthusiasm for the efficacy of Government policy would be infectious but for the detailed work on the Government’s housing policies we have been doing on the Public Accounts Committee, which I commend to her. We are talking a lot about rough sleeping today, but I have far more families who are hidden homeless, or two households in one. They are struggling through the pandemic. It is a public health issue and it is damaging our children. Will she consider talking to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) about a housing market package to buy up hard-to-sell properties in the private sector and provide these people and rough sleepers with the Move On accommodation they so desperately need?

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I am always happy to meet her to discuss particular issues affecting her area and to listen to ideas that Members think may or may not work in their local setting, but I have to reiterate that London has had significant support with the Next Steps accommodation. The exact focus of that is to move those individuals out  of temporary emergency accommodation and into longer-term stability and pathways, delivering that security that those individuals and families need. I will happily meet her to discuss that further.

Suzanne Webb: I start by thanking this Government, who have supported 29,000 people who have been rough sleeping this year alone. I have only a handful of rough sleepers in my constituency—a handful too many—but I thank the Government for finding secure accommodation for them during the pandemic, helping to protect lives and prevent the spread of the virus. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking local charities in my Stourbridge constituency such as Leslie’s Care Packages, which works tirelessly to ensure that rough sleepers have the support they need?

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank my hon. Friend, and I happily pass on my thanks to the charities and the organisation in her constituency, Leslie’s Care Packages, for the work they have been doing throughout the pandemic. Again, I extend my thanks to all in the charitable sector and the voluntary sector, who have done such a lot of work in this area, working constructively with the Government and local authorities to ensure that we are targeting support to those individuals who need the help the most.

Zarah Sultana: In the spring, the Everyone In programme showed that where there is the political will, it is possible to take action to provide shelter for people who need it, but that should not be done only in emergencies; it should be done all year round, guaranteeing safe and warm shelter to everyone who needs it, including those with no recourse to public funds. Rather than wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on covid contracts for friends and family of the Conservative party, will the Government instead provide permanent funding to end homelessness for good?

Kelly Tolhurst: The hon. Lady will know that part of our follow-on from the Everyone In programme—it is still ongoing and has not stopped—is the Next Steps funding, which delivers exactly what she is asking. It is providing not only funding for local authorities to deliver that next stage, Move On accommodation, but £150 million of investment in permanent accommodation —the largest investment in delivering homes in this area since the ’90s.

Cherilyn Mackrory: In Cornwall, homelessness and rough sleeping has historically been an issue. In recent years, some excellent work has been done in Cornwall to combat the issue by St Petrocs and by the local authority, particularly with the success of the recent Pydar Pop UP project in Truro. Of course more needs to be done, and I welcome the £5.5 million that the Government have provided to Cornwall Council since September to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. It is a substantial amount of money that creates a real opportunity to end rough sleeping in Cornwall. However, does my hon. Friend agree that that money needs to be spent on long-term solutions to find homes for those who are homeless and rough sleeping, not just on the short term and quick fixes?

Kelly Tolhurst: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The investment we are making as a Government in long-term secure homes is so important. That is what the Secretary of State and I are driving to achieve, within the realms of the funding, and we are seeing delivery across the country. We are committed to working with local authorities, including Cornwall, to understand the specific challenges. As I have said, every area is slightly different and sometimes there is a different solution for every area. We have to understand those things so that we can work effectively with the local authorities so that they can deliver that change and we can achieve our objectives.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Point of Order

Rachel Hopkins: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 13 October, I submitted a named day written question to the Cabinet Office on whether contractor relief identical to that set out in procurement policy note 02/20 would be given from 31 October, given the ongoing covid outbreak. Nearly a month later, I still have not received a response, and I submitted a named day written question on 5 November asking when my initial named day written question would be answered, but I still have not had a response to that. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, please can you advise me on how I can elicit a response from the Minister for the Cabinet Office on this really important issue?

Eleanor Laing: I am very concerned to hear what the hon. Lady has to say, and I suspect from my own experience as a constituency Member of Parliament that a great many Members around the House are having the same experience as the hon. Lady. [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] I see that almost everyone present in the Chamber is showing their assent. Mr Speaker has made it clear on several previous occasions that Departments must do better in answering questions from hon. Members. We all appreciate that many people are having to work from home and in rather more difficult circumstances than usual, but it should not be wrong of us to expect a certain degree of efficiency from professional civil servants, so the delay to which the hon. Lady refers is unsatisfactory.
I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard the hon. Lady’s concerns, my concerns, Mr Speaker’s concerns and the echo all around the Chamber of almost every hon. Member: this is happening far too often. The hon. Lady may wish to write to the   Leader of the House, and I certainly in answering this question right now hope to draw to the attention of the Leader of the House this predicament.
The Leader of the House said in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter):
“Named day questions must be answered within the named day period…and questions should be being dealt with in timely fashion.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2020; Vol. 693, c. 495.]
I am quite sure that the Leader of the House will be cognisant of the fact that almost every Member of this place shares the experience that the hon. Lady has just described and that he will take steps to ensure that his ministerial colleagues answer their questions in a timely fashion and that those who are supposed to support them do so efficiently.
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next item of business, I will suspend the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Bill Presented

National Security and Investment Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Alok Sharma, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Dominic Raab, Secretary Priti Patel, Michael Gove, Secretary Ben Wallace, Secretary Liz Truss, Secretary Oliver Dowden and Nadhim Zahawi, presented a Bill to make provision for the making of orders in connection with national security risks arising from the acquisition of control over certain types of entities and assets; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 210) with explanatory notes (Bill 210-EN).

Supported Housing (Regulation)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Kerry McCarthy: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate supported housing; to make provision about local authority oversight and the enforcement of standards of accommodation and support in supported housing; to prohibit the placing of children in care in unregulated accommodation; and for connected purposes.
We quite rightly in this country have a regulatory system in place for care homes through the Care Quality Commission. In Scotland, as I understand it, the Care Commission also covers supported housing. I am calling for the same to happen in England for hostels, refuges and other accommodation for people with support needs, so that vulnerable people are housed only in decent, safe accommodation where they will get the support they need and where unscrupulous landlords will no longer be able to exploit them to make a quick buck through the housing benefit system.
I stress that there are many respectable, decent providers of supported housing out there, and I appreciate that theirs is not an easy job. In particular, I pay tribute to the work they have done during this pandemic, with local authorities, to house rough sleepers. Sadly, however, not all providers are like that. Because the local housing allowance is so low in places like Bristol, for some private landlords with an eye to profit, renting at the usual rates has little appeal when, if they convert to supported housing, they can charge much more. They only have to provide a level of support that is “more than minimal” to qualify for an exemption that can get them the enhanced rates of housing benefit that make it so attractive to them.
The situation at Wick House, a large supported housing project in my constituency, is why I got involved, in particular the death of residents—there have been seven deaths since a particular charity began running the place—and in particular the deaths of George Mahoney, whose body was found in a pool of blood in 2016, and Paul Way, who died in 2017 and whose body, despite it being supported accommodation, was not found for three days.
One former worker at the hostel shared with me emails he sent to George’s family after his death in which he describes the living conditions. He talks about visible bed bugs on residents. He said that the Salvation Army would fumigate the kit of anyone coming from Wick House. He spoke of the “employment of career criminals”, the victimisation of vulnerable residents and his concern for women living there, saying:
“there is quite a lot of sexual activity in a drunken/drugged and prostituted state.”
He described a “woeful” lack of support: a visit once a fortnight from a local drugs project and from a mental health team for certain residents, but that was it. He also said—I stress this was back in 2017—that the management
“can’t claim not to know about it—they are facilitating it. I don’t really care whether this is deliberate or accidental, it’s still happening and it needs to be stopped, not ignored.”
What many of us came to realise, however, was how little power anyone had to stop them. When a council commissions supported housing, control can be exercised  through the contract, but with such an uncommissioned service, Bristol Council was really limited in what it could do. The council did refuse to refer people to Wick House, and both it and I urged prison and probation services to do likewise, but Wick House did not find it difficult to fill its rooms with self-referrals and referrals from outside the local area.
In 2017, the landlord attempted to increase the rent from £125 to £343 per tenant, resulting in tribunal proceedings in which the judge, by consent order, reduced it to £170. The management responded by expanding Wick House from 47 residents to 87, cramming them in to recoup the lost income. Even though Wick House was in breach of planning rules, the council still had to pay housing benefit for all 87 tenants regardless, and tried to enforce measures on the breach.
In September 2019, the Charity Commission published a report on Bristol Sheltered Accommodation & Support—the charity that ran Wick House. It found a failure to report serious incidents, including the death of a resident; unauthorised salary payments to trustees; poor financial controls; and unmanaged conflicts of interest. A new charity is now running Wick House. At the time, the Charity Commission warned that the investigations had brought to light wider issues around the regulation of supported housing that limited its ability to hold charities providing such accommodation to account.
It is quite clear that this is not an isolated case, and many colleagues have expressed similar concerns, particularly in cities. In September this year, The Sunday Telegraph published a piece on suburban family homes that were being converted into unlicensed bail hostels—again, the motivation was landlords wanting to get their hands on higher housing-benefit payments. The article said:
“Such family homes contain a volatile mix of ex-prisoners, drug addicts, those with severe mental health issues, refugees and women fleeing domestic abuse.”
Bail hostels that are classed as approved premises are tightly regulated, but their unregulated equivalents are not, and providers can often get away with little to no supervision or support. The West Midlands police and crime commissioner said:
“Regulation needs to come from central government. At the moment, the law is quite free and easy around these areas. Some of these landlords are actually criminals who are making money out of people’s misery.”
The Bill seeks to protect young people. The recent report, “Unregulated”, by the Children’s Commissioner, revealed that 12,800 children in care —or one in eight—spent some time in an unregulated placement that was not registered with Ofsted in 2018-19. They are usually older teens, but there are some under-16s and children with high needs. They are housed in independent or semi-independent accommodation with limited support that is not regulated by the quality inspectorate. The accommodation might be a flat, hostel or bedsit. Even worse, in some cases, it might be a caravan, tent or barge. Children who are supposedly in care are left to fend for themselves with limited support from key workers—perhaps five hours a week or fewer. Young people use words such as “disgusting”, “absolutely terrible” and “like a prison cell” to describe their living arrangements. In some instances, they end up living alongside vulnerable adults, who have their own difficulties, or in placements where they are exposed to the risk of exploitation and  other negative influences. The Children’s Commissioner has called for the use of semi-independent and independent provision to be made illegal for all children in care and for the regulation of unregulated settings. That is included within the scope of the Bill.
There has been growing awareness in recent years, but little action. In May 2017, for example, in a joint report on the future of supported housing, the Committees on Communities and Local Government and on Work and Pensions recommended that the Government should establish a set of national standards to enable monitoring of quality provision in all supported housing in England and Wales. They said that all providers should be registered with a local authority, whether or not their services had been commissioned locally, and that local authorities should undertake annual inspections of all supported housing schemes in their area to ensure a minimum standard of provision.
In response, the Government committed to working with local authorities on how they might best ensure decent and appropriate standards. Very little happened until three years later. Last month, on 20 October, we suddenly saw some movement from the Government. Five pilots in priority areas—Birmingham, Hull, Blackpool, Blackburn and Bristol—will be funded to the tune of £3 million for collaborative working between local partners to test different approaches on greater oversight and enforcement of higher standards in non-commissioned provision. That has been accompanied by the publication of a statement of national expectations that focuses on accommodation.
I am pleased that Bristol was chosen for one of the pilot schemes, and that the Government recognise the good work that Bristol City Council has done. The funding will give the council the opportunity to carry out a quality check on the city’s non-commissioned sector involving a team from environmental health, safeguarding, support review officers and housing benefits to help identify the problems and take what enforcement action we can. However, for reasons I have already set out, I have my doubts about whether a voluntary approach is enough. Local authorities do not have sufficient powers to enforce standards—which are only expected   standards, anyway—and while many decent providers will be happy to co-operate, those in it purely for the money will not do so.
Jess Turtle, co-founder of the Museum of Homelessness recently told The Big Issue that the new measures were “nowhere near” enough. She said that
“40% of the deaths we recorded in 2019 occurred when a person was in emergency or temporary accommodation, and our research clearly shows these tragedies will continue without real action”.
She questioned whether providers would really take time to follow recommended guidelines and was concerned that private landlords and providers, who account for 86% of the £1.1 billion temporary accommodation industry, had not even been identified as supported housing providers in the policy. I think the Government—or at least some Ministers—recognise the flaws in the voluntary approach and view the pilots, which run only for six months, as an evidence-gathering exercise, which I hope will inform future regulation.
I have had Ministers from three different Departments acknowledge in one way or another the need to address the concerns I have raised. I am meeting two more Ministers, including the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), who is in her place today, before the end of the month to discuss what can be done. Across the Atlantic, we have seen a new expression of a desire for bipartisan working in difficult times and, despite our many differences across the House, people would want to see the same approach from us on an issue such as this.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Kerry McCarthy, Mr Clive Betts, Shabana Mahmood, Steve McCabe, Bob Blackman, Helen Hayes, Fleur Anderson, Tim Loughton, Andrew Selous, Mohammad Yasin, Munira Wilson and Andrew Gwynne present the Bill.
Kerry McCarthy accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read the Second time on Friday 15 January, and to be printed (Bill 212).

Remembrance, UK Armed Forces and Society

[Relevant documents: e-petition 332503, entitled Enshrine the Military Covenant in UK Law; Eleventh Report of the Defence Committee, Session 2017-19, Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2018, HC 1899, and the Government Response, First Special Report of the Committee, HC 162; and Oral evidence taken before the Defence Committee on 22 April 2020 on introductory Session with the Defence Secretary, HC 295, on 7 July 2020 on work of the Chief of the Defence Staff, HC 594, and on 13 October 2020 on work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, HC 881, and written evidence from the Service Complaints Ombudsman, HC 881.]

James Heappey: I beg to move,
That this House has considered remembrance, UK armed forces and society.
It is a real honour for me to open the debate not only as the Minister for the Armed Forces in the Ministry of Defence but as someone who has served on four operational tours to Iraq, Afghanistan and Northern Ireland. I hope that, at the end of my remarks, the House will indulge me in giving some personal reflections on the meaning of remembrance.
Before that, I want to draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the call list for the debate, which would make for a formidable half-company, should the nation ever call for us. The number of colleagues in the House who have served underlines the affinity between this place and our nation’s armed forces. A Defence Minister can often reflect on how the partisan hullabaloo of other areas of policy rarely encroaches on how we debate defence in this place. I know, as someone who served in at least two operational theatres that caused some political disagreement, that it really matters that this place not only robustly debates how and where we use our armed forces but does so always in a tone that makes those doing this place’s bidding in dangerous and dusty places realise that everybody in this House has the interests of our armed forces at heart, even when we disagree on how best to use them. I therefore look forward to another characteristically respectful and constructive debate.
It is an honour to take part in this debate on Armistice Day. This is a particularly significant year for remembrance. We are commemorating a century on from the installation of the Cenotaph, and we are marking 100 years since the interring of the unknown warrior in Westminster Abbey. That soldier represents the multitudes who gave their lives in the great war: a soldier buried
“among the kings because he had done good toward God and toward His house”.
Of course, this year we are also celebrating 75 years since the end of world war two.
Inevitably, due to covid, we have had to mark remembrance differently. On Sunday, instead of tens of thousands marching past the Cenotaph, just 26 veterans took part. Instead of people congregating on Whitehall in their thousands, the streets were quiet and still. The remembrance ceremony that I attended in my constituency this year was in Burnham-on-Sea. We attended in small  numbers, I with the chairman of the Royal British Legion; at 9 am we laid our wreath, followed shortly afterwards by a group of councillors.
I actually thought it was quite poignant that things should be remembered in that way, but it also meant, for the first time in a long time for many of us, that we were at home at 11 o’clock and able to watch on television the coverage of the ceremony at the Cenotaph. It was the first time I had seen it for a number of years, and I congratulate all those who put together such a poignant and reflective ceremony worthy of the magnitude of that occasion, while respecting the constraints that we are under because of covid. For all that we bash the BBC, particularly from the Government side of the House, I thought that it got both its coverage and its commentary spot-on on Sunday.
It was also important, I thought, that we had a moment of remembrance this morning in the House. I know that the nation will have looked to us, as well as to the Cenotaph on Whitehall and to Westminster Abbey, for leadership at this important moment in the year. It was great to see that marked here in the Chamber.
There are three points that I want to make today: our appreciation of the support our armed forces receive from the public at large, from the service charities, and from the Royal British Legion in particular; our admiration for the service of those who continue to put their lives on the line in the defence of our great nation; and our reverence for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice so that we may enjoy our freedom.
When I was in Afghanistan and Iraq, every time that we received a delivery of mail, there would be all the mail from our family and friends but there would also be hundreds of letters and parcels from people with no connection to the armed forces beyond their admiration for what young men and women were willing to go away to do. I can tell the House that when we were in remote operating bases such as I was in Sangin, the fact that somebody had taken the time to write a letter to a soldier they did not know, or to send some biscuits or sweets, meant an enormous amount. It reminds our armed forces always just how close they are to our nation’s hearts.
We have seen that ourselves in our constituencies over the last few months, where soldiers, sailors, airmen, airwomen and marines have been delivering testing centres, delivering personal protective equipment to the local hospital or, earlier in the year, stuffing sandbags. I can tell the House how much it means to our men and women when members of the community just go up and say, “Thank you. Well done. You’re doing a great job.” People do that, unprompted, because they admire those who wear the uniform of our armed forces in the service of our nation.

Jim Shannon: The Minister refers to what happened in Afghanistan—the letters and things that went there. Seven years ago, I had the opportunity to represent my party in Afghanistan in meeting the Royal Irish Regiment. I knew their love of Tayto potato crisps, so I took lots of them with me and gave them out to the soldiers, both male and female, who were there. That brought them close to home, and that is really important whenever they are in Afghanistan serving their Queen and country.

James Heappey: The hon. Member is a keen supporter of our armed forces, and I can tell him that the great pleasure of serving in his beautiful corner of the world, as I have done, is not the stunning landscape or the Bushmills, but the Tayto chips in our packed lunches on the ranges.
Beyond the support of the community are our amazing service charities. So many of them do great work for our armed forces all year round, but at this time of year it is particularly important to reflect on the contribution of the Royal British Legion and the importance of its poppy appeal. It is an amazing commitment from poppy collectors all over the country that normally they go out in all weathers, from dawn till dusk, to sell poppies wherever they can. This year, of course, they have been more limited in what they have been able to do, but again and again I have seen in my constituency, and I know colleagues will have seen likewise, that they have done everything they can—within the law—to get out and raise as much money as they can for this important cause. We are all hugely grateful to them for doing so. I know that we would all want anybody watching today’s proceedings or reflecting on the fact that today is Armistice Day and they are yet to get their poppy to know that there is still time and that their money makes a real difference, in looking after both the families of those who have given their lives in conflict and those who have been forever scarred by their service.
That leads me to the service of our armed forces and the unlimited liability that they accept in the service of our nation—to do anything, anywhere, at any time, if this House and Her Majesty’s Government will it. That is an extraordinary thing to sign up and do. Some of us have done it for a few years. Some of us have done it for entire careers. Some of us have not done it at all, but to those who continue to serve, what matters is not whether a person has served but that they pause and reflect that as they go on with their life, and as their family are leading their lives, those who serve have accepted a responsibility on behalf of the nation to drop everything and leave at any moment to go and do whatever the nation requires anywhere in the world. That is an amazing act of selflessness that we should all be grateful for.

Chris Elmore: The Minister talks about years of service. I wonder whether he would commend and congratulate my constituent, Mrs Barbara McGregor, who is due to retire in January next year after 44 years of service in the Royal Navy to Queen and country. Mrs McGregor is taking part in Armistice services this week, and she was meant to be leading the parade march in the Bridgend county borough this weekend but was not able to. Would the Minister commend her and congratulate her on her service, and on the fact that she has put everything—Queen and country—as a sole focus of her entire service in the Navy?

James Heappey: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s constituent on the longevity of her service and remark on what an amazing lifetime of commitment that is, with all the moments for her family, within her community and for her friends that she missed because she put her service of our country first. It is a quite extraordinary commitment, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising it in the House this afternoon.
Over the last few months, I have had the opportunity to see fast jet pilots serving in different corners of the European theatre, going out on missions where split-second decisions can be the difference between mission success and catastrophe. I visited helicopter crews in Mali operating in austere conditions, where it is dusty and dangerous and it is pretty hard to keep the Chinooks flying. I have seen air transport squadrons flying day after day and night after night to maintain the extraordinary efforts of our nation’s armed forces around the globe. I have seen troops operating in Estonia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and others on Salisbury plain preparing for a new deployment to Mali next month. I have seen training teams, big and small, working with our partners around the world.
The Royal Navy has had ships recently in the Barents sea, the Black sea, the eastern Mediterranean, the Caribbean, the Atlantic, the Gulf and the Indian ocean. Our sailors and Royal Marines right now are responding to the humanitarian disaster that has followed in the wake of recent hurricanes in the Caribbean. We are rebuilding our sovereign carrier strike capability, and yesterday, I had the enormous honour of seeing the awe-inspiring work of Her Majesty’s Submarine Service, who keep our continuous at-sea deterrent hidden from view—silent but utterly deadly, and non-stop for 51 years.
That would just be business as usual for Defence, but this year, there has been an extraordinary contribution in supporting the Government’s response to covid as well. As we emerge from the covid crisis, there is an expectation that instability will follow in its wake, so our armed forces can look forward to even more activity in even more uncertain parts of the world, reassuring our allies, deterring our adversaries, demonstrating our resolve to uphold a rules-based international system and destroying those who mean us harm when they have to.
There are also a vast number of people who have served in our nation’s armed forces and who we must now look after as veterans. I pay tribute to the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), for all the work that he does in that regard. Our veterans community matters enormously. They are an important part of the moral component of fighting power. If you are serving in the armed forces now, your confidence to act decisively on behalf of the nation is motivated by how you see the nation supporting its veterans back at home at that time. You want to know that if you get hurt, or take a decision, the Government and the nation will stand behind you for the rest of your life, and that is a commitment that this Government are proud to make.
Finally, sacrifice. Last week I was in Egypt visiting HMS Albion, which was in Alexandria after a successful deployment to the eastern Mediterranean. While I was up on the north coast of Egypt, I went to the cemetery at El Alamein. Like all Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries, it was immaculately maintained. It was vast, and all over it were grouped graves, which I understand is symptomatic of an armoured battle where entire tank crews or armoured personnel carrier crews died in one go. Very often their remains were almost impossible to separate, so they were buried with four or five headstones immediately adjacent to one another. That makes one pause and reflect on the horror of a battle of that intensity.
Then, as in so many other Commonwealth war graves cemeteries around the world, there were the unmarked graves of those who we will never know exactly who they were and who lie now underneath foreign soil to be remembered anonymously for all time. Then there were the Commonwealth graves, thousands of them, reminding us that this was an effort not just from all corners of the United Kingdom but from all corners of the Commonwealth. It was pleasing, therefore, to see that in Commonwealth war graves cemeteries around the world and in our embassies and high commissions on Sunday, there were moments of remembrance to reflect on the sacrifice of so many from other countries in the defence of our great nation.
This year, marking 75 years since the end of the second world war, has been a great opportunity for us to reflect not only on victory in Europe but on victory in Japan. That Pacific campaign is so often the one that is spoken about less, yet the acts of heroism and derring-do were no less important. Indeed, in many of the stories I have heard, the deprivation was far greater because of the environment in which the forces were operating. Since then, brave servicemen and women from the United Kingdom have given their lives in Korea, the Falklands, Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. It is on those last two conflicts that I have my own personal reflections.
When you join up, you know there is a risk that the moment might come when you have to put yourself in a position where you might lose your life. When you stand there at Sandhurst, Dartmouth, Cranwell, Catterick or HMS Raleigh and the flag is there and the Queen is on the wall and the Bible is put in your hand, you are filled with confidence that you are on a career path that is worthy and great, but when you are behind a wall and the rounds are hitting the other side or an improvised explosive device has just gone off and you know that you have to stand up close with the enemy and do your duty, that is a moment when you realise a lot about yourself. It is also a moment, sadly, from which people do not always return, and their loss is something that I feel keenly every time I pause and reflect on my experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I know that for the entire veterans community there will be a face that is in their minds when the Last Post is blown and the two minutes’ silence is followed. In communities across the country, there will be people who are remembered because they were there one month and then, six months later when their friends and comrades returned, there were no longer there. They were just a name on a war memorial. Those names are lives cut down in their prime and as we pause, over Remembrance Weekend and on Armistice Day today, let us never forget that they turned up at a recruiting office and embarked on their military careers, believing that what they were going to do would make a difference for our country and protect our freedom. They knew in the back of their mind that perhaps they might be called upon to give their life, but they hoped and even expected that it would never be them. Hundreds of thousands have answered our nation’s call and given their lives in doing so. We will remember them.

Eleanor Laing: Before I call the spokesman for the Opposition, I thank the Minister for his brevity in his opening speech. It will be  obvious that there are over 50 colleagues trying to catch my eye, and that we have only three hours for this debate. I therefore have to start with a time limit on Back Bench speeches of six minutes. That will be reduced later in the debate, and people who are further down the list must recognise the reality that they are unlikely to be called, but I am happy to call John Healey.

John Healey: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have to say that it is an honour to follow the Minister and his moving speech this afternoon, and I pay tribute to him for his four tours of duty and his decade of service in the Rifles, just as I pay tribute to the service that other hon. Members in all parts of this House have given to our armed forces. Parliament is all the better for Members who have committed service in the forces, and this House is also all the better for the service of Members who are committed to the forces. I look forward to the contributions to this afternoon’s debate of many of those hon. Members who are on the long call list.
As we did this morning in this Chamber, this is indeed the moment we commemorate the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, when hostilities ceased in 1918. It is the focus of our national remembrance each year: the moment the nation comes together to honour those who have served, those who have fought to keep us safe, and above all, those who have made the ultimate sacrifice with their lives so that the rest of us may continue to enjoy the freedoms we do today. The Minister put it far more eloquently than many of the rest of us can, but the men and women who wear a British military uniform make a unique commitment to, if needed, put themselves in harm’s way to protect the rest of us. I want this day’s debate to recall not just the lives of those lost in the two world wars, but those of the 7,190 UK service personnel who have died in operations since 1945.
I was reminded of this on Sunday, when I, like the Minister, was proud to lay a wreath alongside the president of our local British Legion branch in Rotherham. His name is Ron Moffett; he served for more than 20 years in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, and he talked to me of comrades he had lost in Northern Ireland, in the Falklands, in Afghanistan, and in Germany in training. I want my relatively brief remarks in this debate to concentrate on the ordinary servicemen and women: on their extraordinary sense of duty, and on our duty, in turn, to them.
The Minister was right to say that remembrance has a particular poignancy this year. During 2020, we have marked 75 years since the end of the second world war—VE Day and VJ Day—and 80 years since the battle of Britain, and we have all been forced to find new ways to remember: ways that are perhaps more private, but no less important and no less personal. This year, we have also seen the hallmark values that have been there in generations of our forces personnel come to the fore again, as our troops have stood alongside frontline workers in the fight against the covid virus. I have said to the Defence Secretary that during this new national lockdown in England and the national vaccination challenge ahead, if the Government are willing to make further use of our forces in this fight, they will have our full support and strong backing from the public. The  system that we have of military assistance to civil authorities is sound. It has been used 341 times for covid help since mid-March and 41 agreements are still in place, but people want to know now what the plan is. They have a right to know, and they also have a right to regular ministerial reporting on such decisions. I say to the Minister that I hope he and his colleagues will do this, because it will also help better understanding and better support for our military.
The Chief of the Defence Staff was right when he said recently that this should worry us all. He said that the level of understanding about our armed forces is at “an unprecedented low.” That is borne out by research that the British Forces Broadcasting Service published in June, which confirmed that 68% of the population do not know what the military actually do when they are not in combat. One third had no idea that our military play a part in thwarting terrorism or dealing with the aftermath of floods, and 53% believe that they use battle tanks to get around on a daily basis.

Bob Stewart: Sounds good to me.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is harking back to the days when perhaps he did use battle tanks on a daily basis, but I think we are a little short of tanks to go round these days.
On a serious point, the number of veterans in society is set to fall by a third during this decade. It is clear to me that we must do more at all levels to reinforce our country’s understanding of and commitment to our armed forces.
On cadets, community cadet numbers have been falling and we cannot just rely on private schools. We can do more to reinvest in more community cadet forces. We now rely more on the professional expertise and skills of reservists, but the numbers are still below target, and we can do more to make recruitment better and employer support stronger.
On resilience, the covid pandemic has demonstrated that national resilience is an important part of national defence, and we can do more to strengthen Britain’s total deterrence, with large-scale joint civil, corporate and military exercises. On veterans, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs was a welcome step last year, but we can do more to make the UK the best place to be a veteran by enshrining the armed forces covenant in law. I say constructively and respectfully to the Minister that if the Government are willing to take those steps, they will have our full support to do so.
In this debate, we rightly celebrate the national pride we have in our military personnel, full-time and reservist. They are respected around the world for their professionalism and their all-round excellence, but I say again constructively and respectfully that if Ministers talk up our armed forces, they must also account for the declines there have been in the past decade or two. Since 2010, our full-time forces numbers are down by 40,000. Our military has never been smaller since we fought Napoleon 200 years ago. Forces pay is down, forces recruitment is down and forces morale is down. One in four military personnel now say they plan to quit before the end of their contract.
In 2015, the strategic defence review, in 89 pages, devoted just one and a half pages to personnel. Just like the 2010 defence review, it was largely a cover for cuts,   which is why our armed forces are nearly 12,000 short of the strength promised in that 2015 review. It is why essential equipment, from new tanks to the radar system to protect our new aircraft carriers, is long overdue, and it is why our defence budget has a £13 billion black hole.
The Defence Secretary has rightly said that previous reviews
“failed because they were never in step with the spending plans”.—[Official Report, 6 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 647.]
Both sides of the House recognise that the Chancellor cut the ground from under the Defence Secretary when he postponed this year’s comprehensive spending review, but we also know that our adversaries will not pause. They confront us with continuous and constantly developing threats that no longer conform to any distinction between peace and war and are no longer confined to the land, sea and air domains of conventional warfare. So the Government’s integrated review is needed now more than ever.
As we move, as the Defence Secretary has put it, from “industrial age” to “information age” warfare, we must never neglect one fact: at the heart of our defence and security remain our forces personnel. Autonomous weapons, artificial intelligence and robotics will all become more and more widespread in the years ahead, but the essential utility of the men and women of our armed forces will remain central. Whether it is the frontline forces personnel doing city-wide covid testing in Liverpool or the special forces who took back control of the Nave Andromeda in the English channel last month, these are only the most recent reminders that although high-tech systems are essential, our highly trained British troops are indispensable. When the Chief of the Defence Staff launched our important new military doctrine, the military integrated operating concept, in September, he stressed that it
“emphasises the importance of our people—who have always been, and always will be, our adaptive edge.”
We honour them and we remember them.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. Defence is a subject that we do not discuss enough, so I suspect that, just as the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said, we will wander away from giving gratitude to those in the past and look at some future challenges. I am pleased to see my fellow Rifleman, the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), in his place. The whole House joins him in saying thank you to our gallant, brave warriors, who have defended our shores, skies and interests over the years. It is important that despite the pandemic, we are able to continue to say thank you.
We pay tribute to those in the past, whom we all appreciate. I recall sitting on my grandfather’s knee when he explained the first world war medals that he had been awarded. That created a bond with me that has never gone away. It perhaps influenced me in stepping forward, wanting to serve. That link between myself and those in the armed forces is different from that between society and our armed forces today, as our armed forces have shrunk. We have seen vivid illustrations of some perceptions of what they now do, so part of what we are doing today is about educating the next  generation on the importance and value that we in Britain bestow on our armed forces, which is perhaps uniquely different from what happens in other countries around the world.

Danny Kruger: On the work that our armed forces do today—other Members have mentioned their immense contribution during the covid crisis—will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the British Army units based in Wiltshire, on Salisbury plain, in my constituency, which is of course the home of the British Army, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) might like to say? Would my right hon. Friend also welcome, as I would, a welcome home parade, which might be organised by the Houses of Parliament, for soldiers once the covid crisis is behind us, to honour troops who have contributed to tackling it, just as we honour the contributions of troops who have been deployed overseas?

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful for that intervention and I was pleased to see the Minister nodding as my hon. Friend was speaking. That is exactly what we did with troops returning from Afghanistan and it is another way to engage with the public. I do not dare go down this avenue too much, but in reporting the great work being done in Liverpool the BBC had to give a health warning to say, “You are about to see images of armed forces on the streets in Liverpool. Please do not be worried.” That is a testament to how much work we need to do to change the culture that is building up in this country.
On the pandemic, I am afraid that I do concur with the view, as I said yesterday, that, while the military is doing fantastic work across the country with regard to logistics, transport and so forth, it is an under-utilised asset when it comes to emergency planning, crisis management and strategic thinking. Some of the decisions that have been made by this Government have, I am afraid, been clunky. The best decision makers and strategists that we have are in the Ministry of Defence, yet there is not a military person to be seen in the quad, the top decision-making body dealing with this pandemic.
On the issue of veterans, which came up in Prime Minister’s questions, I simply underline the pressure that our service charities are currently facing. One fifth of them may go out of business by Christmas. They are not able to raise the funds that they need. We will be breaching the armed forces covenant unless we are able to provide that support. I hope the Prime Minister is listening. It is something that I raised at the Liaison Committee. It is so important to recognise that, from their own surveys, mental health issues have increased by 75% and loneliness by 70%. These are issues that we need to embrace and recognise.
We can all see that, internationally, we are in a very interesting place. We have a United States that is now waking up to recognise that it needs to improve its global leadership. We need to be in the room as that happens, because, over the past 10 years, there has been a demise in what the west stands for, what we believe in and what we are willing to defend and our wily adversaries, not least China, have taken advantage of that. We have not even had our integrated review yet. We do not even know what we stand for, what we believe in, and where we want to go. Please, Minister, and I know you believe  this yourself, get that integrated review done. We cannot even work out how many tanks or aeroplanes we will have, let alone our going over to the United States to say that our thought leadership is the best in the world, our soft power is the best in the world. It will not take us seriously unless we complete that review and it is fully funded. I make the case—Madam Deputy Speaker, I can see that you are already looking at me in that way—that this is a day when we say thank you to our armed forces for the past and a day, I hope, when all of us will be resolute in defending, supporting and urging the Ministers on to say, “Let’s invest in the future of our armed forces”, so that we can be as proud of them in the future as we have been in the past.

David Linden: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the Chair of the Defence Committee. It is also an honour to speak in today’s debate on behalf of the Scottish National party. I want to start by placing on the record our grateful thanks to all service personnel for their commitment to defending these islands.
Like many other hon. Members, I marked Remembrance Sunday in my own constituency at the weekend. In Parkhead, the Eastern Necropolis includes the graves of 76 soldiers who died in the first world war and of 32 soldiers who died in the second world war. These 108 graves of soldiers serve as a reminder to me of the brave men and women who sacrificed their lives to fight for us to live in a peaceful and tolerant society. Although these soldiers were laid to rest in Glasgow, many soldiers did not, of course, return home. A total of 134,712 Scottish men and women died in world war one. According to the most recent assessment, 26% of all Scots who went abroad in the war effort did not return to Scotland. We are unified in remembrance of the selflessness, heroism and the personal sacrifices endured by millions during and since world war one.
In remembering the horrors of the first and second world wars, we should reaffirm their commitment to peace, fairness and the rule of law. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) is currently stuck in Committee at the moment so cannot be here, but she wanted to place on record her thanks to the Bridgeton Cross VC memorial group to remember Private Henry May who rescued two comrades under machine gun fire as well as others lost from the local community.
While remembering the past, we must also consider what support we currently provide for our service personnel and veterans across the UK, many of whom face an array of challenges from mental health to homelessness. I am privileged to have a top-class Scottish veterans’ residence complex in my constituency in Cranhill, and it is an honour for me to be wearing their tie for today’s debate. However, as politicians, it is our responsibility to ensure that when veterans return to civilian life in our communities, they are supported through this transition. We know that service personnel are more likely to suffer from problems surrounding mental health, particularly post-traumatic stress disorder. Indeed, 6% of all ex-military personnel suffer from PTSD. Mental health support must be made readily available for all, without any judgment or stigma attached—I hear that message time and again at my bespoke veterans’ surgery in Cranhill. Last year, the No Homeless Veterans campaign identified  3,500 veterans who were experiencing homelessness, either sofa-surfing, living in temporary accommodation or even sleeping rough. As the SNP spokesperson for housing in this place, I believe it is important to highlight this ever-present issue and to ensure that no veteran experiences homelessness.

Matt Rodda: I commend what the hon. Gentleman is saying and thank the many local authorities that are putting veterans at the top of their list of people prioritised for council housing. Reading Borough Council has done so and I encourage other local authorities to do the same. It is important that we respect veterans in that way and provide them with the homes that they need once they have finished their service.

David Linden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and commend the support that has been provided by Reading Borough Council. At this juncture, I also pay tribute to Phil Greene, formerly of Glasgow City Council in my own patch, who has done a sterling job on that issue as well.
Combat Stress, the UK’s leading mental health charity for former servicemen and women, found that service personnel were waiting until their 60s to receive help for alcohol and substance abuse. With understandable pride deterring former service personnel, many delay seeking the help that they need.
I am proud of all the work that the SNP-led Scottish Government are doing to support ex-service personnel across Scotland, including the appointment of the Scottish Veterans Commissioner—the first person to hold such a position in the UK. The Scottish Veterans Fund has been established to support projects that provide a wide range of advice and practical support to veterans across Scotland, and to support the creation of an armed forces union to be a voice for the wide range of interests, concerns and identities within the forces community. On that note, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who led the way with his ten-minute rule Bill on that subject.
On a personal note, I am proud to be a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, alongside the Royal Air Force. The scheme is led by Wing Commander Greg Smith and the programme has given me a unique window on the lives of service personnel and the challenges that they face as part of their service. When I went to RAF Leeming, it really struck me to see people operating drones from inside what was almost a metal tin. When I considered the intensity of the work that they were doing in there and the fact that they still go home to a normal civilian household, it really reaffirmed some of the challenges that our serving personnel face in the light of a changing landscape. It is important to understand the hardships faced by many veterans, both in service and in the return to civilian life. We should always look to ensure that every possible support is available to them.
As others have said, Remembrance Sunday has been very different this year. With covid-19 restrictions in place, we were not able to gather all together as a community to reflect and to remember all those who died in military service. However, we found ways to commemorate the fallen with private services, and landmarks across Scotland have been lit up red to raise awareness of the poppy appeal. It is right that Members   put on the record their concerns about some of the funding for such organisations—indeed, Gordon Michie, head of fundraising at Poppyscotland said recently:
“This has been one of the most challenging years in the history of Poppy Scotland, but the breadth of landmarks and businesses involved in this campaign shows that Scotland still stands shoulder to shoulder with our country’s service personnel.”
During this Covid-19 public health crisis, it is important to recognise that the wars we fought decades ago did not eliminate conflict and suffering. Today, millions still suffer because of wars and atrocities, and societies are arguably more divided than ever, but we must all reflect on the lessons of the first and second world wars. In particular, Governments must remember that peace and tolerance must prevail over hatred and conflict. Everyone in this House must consider how we can use our influence to better prevent conflict from arising and better promote the compromise and dialogue that can lead to enduring peace, safety and fairness around the world.
While I laid my wreath at the Eastern Necropolis on Sunday, I thought of the thousands of other men and women who never returned home from war. The Scottish poet Neil Munro wrote:
“Sweet be their sleep now wherever they’re lying,
Far though they be from the hills of their home.”
We will remember them.

Julian Lewis: Because we are commemorating the 75th anniversary of the end of world war two, I shall concentrate entirely on that conflict. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you are quietly but rightly proud of your father’s brave record of fighting in the second world war, but as the years and decades go by, fewer and fewer people have that sort of direct personal knowledge. In the limited time available, I would like to take one brief example from each year of the second world war, to try to humanise the picture a little bit for those who do not have the sort of personal connection that I just described.
Let us take, for example, November 1939. A converted passenger liner, HMS Rawalpindi, found herself trapped by two of the largest and most deadly ships in the German navy: the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau. The captain of HMS Rawalpindi was Captain Edward Kennedy, who was 60 years old. He had come out of retirement after his service in the first world war and between the wars to re-enlist. Rather than surrender, he took on those two deadly ships, and the Rawalpindi, as was entirely predictable, went down with all flags flying and with few survivors. I am going to develop that theme, which is that many of these events are not necessarily successful, but that does not mean that they are not ultimately setting standards for inspiring their fellow service personnel, their comrades and future generations. They certainly inspired me.
We move forward from Captain Kennedy—who, incidentally, was father of the late Sir Ludovic Kennedy—to November 1940. In 1940, another converted passenger liner, HMS Jervis Bay, was escorting a convoy of nearly 40 ships. The Jervis Bay found herself standing between that convoy and the German pocket battleship the Admiral Scheer. The convoy was instructed to scatter, and Captain Fogarty Fegen, who was the commander of the Jervis Bay, steamed towards certain death and destruction and saved three quarters of the ships in that  convoy. There was a time when the names “Rawalpindi” and “Jervis Bay” were known throughout the land, and it is important that we periodically remind ourselves of these inspirational examples where people sacrificed themselves doing the right thing, even though they knew they had little or no chance of survival.
On a happier note, we turn to May 1941, when HMS Bulldog is a member of a flotilla of anti-submarine escorts that bring to the surface the U-110. My late friend, the then 20-year-old Sub-Lieutenant David Balme, heads up a rowing boat of half a dozen sailors. They get on board the U-110 submarine, which has been forced to the surface. They go down, not knowing whether the submarine will blow up from scuttling charges or whether there are people waiting armed at the foot of the conning tower ladder as they climb down, unable to defend themselves. They recover the Enigma machine and the code books and thus make a vital contribution to the winning of the battle of the Atlantic.
Then we come back to the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau. It is February 1942, and half a dozen clapped-out, obsolete Swordfish biplanes take on the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau as they sail up the English channel with enormous air cover. Of those six biplanes, all six were shot down. Five of the aircrew survived the operation and four survived the war, and one of them later became my friend: Pat Kingsmill DSO. He is typical of these people who did courageous acts that were on everyone’s lips at the time, but then went on to live quiet lives—in the case of Pat Kingsmill, as an administrator in the NHS for many years.

John Healey: I suspect that, like me, the whole House is enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s year-by-year exposition of the second world war. I wonder whether he would accept another minute as a result of my intervention.

Julian Lewis: That is extraordinarily generous, but quite typical of the right hon. Gentleman.
We come to September 1943, and three midget submarines attack the German battleship Tirpitz in a Norwegian fjord. Godfrey Place, the captain of the X7, escapes from his sinking submarine, and later becomes admiral in charge of reserves. Although he was a very important figure in the Royal Navy, he still had time to meet somebody like me—a schoolboy in Swansea, when he was there on a visit—and to autograph a book about submarine escape. These little gestures from truly great men inspire young people.
We come to the last two. The airborne assault at Arnhem in September 1944 was another disaster. But Tony Hibbert MC, who later became a friend of mine through my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), went on to work throughout many years, trying to argue for civil defence and protection for this country.
Finally, Operation Meridian—the raids on the oil refineries at Palembang in Sumatra—happened in January 1945. Norman Richardson—again, a friend of mine, who sadly passed away—was commemorated on the 75th anniversary of the end of the war in the special edition of obituaries in The Daily Telegraph. He was a telegraphist air gunner. These were people who flew on  a raid in January, when people in Sumatra were not expecting it, but they did not knock out all the oil refineries so they went back a few days later, when everyone was expecting them, and they did it again. They were shot down, but three quarters of Japan’s oil refining capability was lost to the Japanese war effort.
We remember them all.

Diana R. Johnson: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).
I represent a seat in the city of Hull, which has a strong, proud and long association with our armed forces. We were also among the hardest hit during the blitz. But today I want to speak as a commissioner of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I am very pleased indeed that the Minister, in his opening remarks, talked about the commission, which commemorates 1.7 million Commonwealth servicemen and women from the United Kingdom and all over the Commonwealth who died during the two world wars.
As hon. Members will know, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission was founded as the Imperial War Graves Commission by royal charter on 21 May 1917, and was renamed the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in March 1960. In March this year, the Duke of Kent celebrated 50 years of unstinting service as the commission’s president. I also pay tribute to our last director general, Victoria Wallace, who left the commission in the summer.
The commission cares for the graves and memorials at 23,000 locations in more than 150 countries and territories—on every continent except Antarctica. The commission also commemorates more than 68,000 civilians who died during the second world war, by maintaining and restoring sites such as the Tower Hill memorial. Funded by six partner Governments—the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India—the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is the largest gardening organisation in the world, with a total workforce of 1,300. The vast majority—more than 850—are gardeners, who between them look after the equivalent of almost 1,000 football pitches.
Our war dead deserve the highest standards, and hon. Members will know the quality of the Portland stone graves and the monuments that the commission oversees, as well as the beautifully tended cemeteries, such as the largest commission cemetery in the world at Tyne Cot in Belgium, with almost 12,000 graves, 8,300 of which are classed as “unknown”. I encourage all hon. Members, in their own constituencies and when travelling around the country or the world, to take the opportunity to visit commission sites. Encouraging the public to visit these graves also supplements the efforts of the excellent commission staff and the trained volunteers from the commission’s Eyes On, Hands On project, helping to report on and countering the effects of weather, wear and tear and, sadly, sometimes vandalism.
One restoration project I want to mention is at Runnymede. It is the Air Forces memorial, where the commission’s new charitable arm, the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation, marked International Women’s Day by launching a new interactive way to explore the story of the remarkable Noor Inayat Khan, a British  woman spy whose code name was “Madeleine”. She was the first female wireless operator to be sent to occupied France in the second world war to aid the French resistance.
The commission also maintains an extensive and accessible archive of all the Commonwealth war dead on its website, and in recent years the commission has opened a new award-winning visitor centre as its French HQ near Arras. However, for this 11 November—an Armistice Day like no other, as many have said—the commission is urging the public to join with it in paying tribute to the 1.7 million Commonwealth war dead through a unique act of remembrance. We encourage everyone to take a moment at 7 pm tonight to step outside, look at the stars and remember the fallen. In a few key locations, such as Plymouth, Cardiff and Edinburgh, searchlights will beam light into the night sky.
I want to salute the work of many other organisations, including the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes, in remembering our war dead and supporting veterans from many conflicts. Can I take a moment to express eternal gratitude to the veterans of all our allies across the Commonwealth and beyond, who ensured that we did not stand alone for long, particularly in 1940? They sacrificed so much, as together we liberated Europe and the world from what Prime Minister Churchill described as sinking
“into the abyss of a new dark age”.—[Official Report, 18 June 1940; Vol. 362, c. 60.]
The United States, too, was shoulder to shoulder with us on those Normandy beaches and through the decades since—the years of the cold war and the more recent challenges of terrorism, especially since 9/11—and leading by the “power of our example”, as President-elect Biden said just this week.
To conclude, remembrance is both deeply embedded in our national consciousness and personal to all of us who had parents or grandparents in the greatest generation. We remember those who did not come back. We also remember those who did come back and helped to win the peace. I remember my dad, Eric Johnson, who joined the Navy, and my mum, Ruth, who worked in a munitions factory during world war two. In my experience, they rarely talked about what they did and what they went through as young men and women, and in enjoying peace, freedom and progress, we will always owe them everything.

Eleanor Laing: After the next speaker, the limit will be reduced to five minutes, but with six minutes, I call Colonel Bob Stewart.

Bob Stewart: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I start by quoting a poem by “Woodbine Willie”—Padre Geoffrey Studdert Kennedy:
“There are many kinds of sorrow
In this world of love and hate
But there is no keener sorrow
Than a soldier’s for his mate.”
That is very apposite for me today because I remember all the men who were killed under my command. In particular today, may I mention those killed at Ballykelly on 6 December 1982? Seventeen people were killed: six of them were civilians and 11 were soldiers. Six of the  soldiers were from my own company, A Company of the Cheshires—Steven Bagshaw, Clinton Collins, Philip McDonough, David Stitt, Steven Smith and Shaw Williamson. They all died when I was present.
I was the incident commander. As I went into the wrecked building that was the Droppin Well, almost the first person I saw was a girl lying on the ground. I was horrified. Both her legs had gone, and an arm. I knelt down—horrified, again—and spoke to her: “Are you all right, darling?” She said, “I think so.” I said, “Are you hurting?” She said, “No.” I said to her, “How are you feeling?” She said, “I don’t know. What’s happened?”  I said, “There’s been a bomb.” “Oh”, she said, “am I hurt?” I said, “You’re hurt.” She said, “Am I hurt very badly?” I said, “You’re hurt very badly.” She said, “Am  I going to die?” Forgive me—I said, “Yes.” I could see no other way; there was blood everywhere. She said, “Am I going to die now?”, and I said, “I think you are.” She said, “Will you hold me?” I held her and she died within two minutes. I wept. She died in a state of grace. She was one of 17 killed that day.
It took me four hours to identify my six soldiers in the morgue of Altnagelvin Hospital. I went to their funerals in Cheshire—six funerals in five days, two on the Friday. At the second funeral, as I came out of St George’s church in Stockport, there was an old lady crying on the far side of the road. I crossed over. I was in uniform. I put my arm round her and I said to her, “Don’t worry—he’s out of his pain.” She said, “You don’t understand, young man.” I said, “I do understand”, because I felt inside my brain that I did understand— I was there when he died. But she read my brain—what I was thinking. She said, “No, you don’t understand. You see, I stood here when I was a little girl and watched 6th Cheshires”—I think it was 6th Cheshires; they were Cheshires—“march into that church, 900 of them. After the battle of the Somme they filled three pews. I am crying for them.” Then I understood.
One thousand, four hundred and forty-one soldiers, sailors and airmen—service personnel—died in Northern Ireland. That is more than in all the other conflicts together since, by 50%. You have to remember that.
I remember, too, my escort driver, Wayne Edwards, killed on 13 January 1993. I had given the order to escort four women to hospital through Gornji Vakuf, and he was shot through the head as he did so. I am responsible for his death.
When I came here in 2010, I went into the Tea Room and a guy comes up to me and he says, “Nice to see you, Colonel—we haven’t met since Turbe.” I said, “Why?” He said, “I was in the Bosnian Croat army. I was a sniper.” I said, “The snipers shot Staff Sergeant Steve Bristow in the head. You were a sniper.” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Well, that’s a turn-up for the books—you’re working in the House of Commons and I arrive here and you’re actually a sniper that’s shot one of my soldiers.” He said, “Yes.” But here is the point: he was a young man doing his duty, as he saw it. He was not a criminal; he was just doing what he thought was right.
When I think of Remembrance Day, I am not just thinking of the soldiers, sailors and airmen; I am thinking of the civilians. In my own constituency, 320 civilians were killed in the second world war—more than the servicemen from my own constituency. So I am thinking of them. I am particularly thinking of the civilians too.  I am thinking of that girl—one of five killed on 6 December. It saddens me that they are not here, and that is what Remembrance Day is all about.

Carla Lockhart: May I say what an honour it is to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)? I thank him for the way in which he served and protected the people of Northern Ireland.
At this time of national reflection, we remember all those who stood, who bravely volunteered, who served with valour, who fought bravely and heroically, and who died as heroes. They did that for all for us: for this land we call home and for the freedoms this nation has and I trust will always hold dear.
On the eleventh day of the eleventh month, we think particularly of the horrors of the first world war. My mind turns to the battlefields of France. As a daughter of Ulster, I pause to consider the sacrifice of those who left the factories and farmlands of my homeland, of Ulster soil, and who laid down their lives on the battlefields of the Somme. On 1 July morn, as the 36th (Ulster) Division went over the top, little did they know that 5,500 would be killed, wounded or missing within two days. Two thousand five hundred would lose their lives. In the words of Sir Wilfrid Spender:
“I am not an Ulsterman, but yesterday, the 1 July, as I followed their amazing attack I felt that I would rather be an Ulsterman than anything else in the world.”
Today, row after row of white headstones mark the sacrifice of these fathers, sons, husbands, brothers and friends. Many more headstones also stand in the Somme region and beyond Flanders fields. It is a solemn privilege to visit these bloodstained lands and to visit the iconic Ulster tower, which I might add is celebrating its 100th anniversary next year.
In today’s Northern Ireland, that sacrifice is still remembered. I have the privilege of working with a group called the Ancre Somme Association, a group of more dedicated people you will not find. Their aim locally is to ensure that our children and future generations are taught about the importance of remembrance. I think we can all take a lesson from that today.
I also want to commend the incredible work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. We heard much of it from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and we thank her for that. Its work in the building and upkeep of 23,000 cemeteries across the world ensures that 1.7 million men and women of the Commonwealth forces who died in the first and second world wars will not be forgotten. It is, quite simply, remarkable. When we visit the cemeteries, they are immaculate. That is a testament to the Commission, its staff and its amazing army of gardeners. They do amazing work.
At this time of remembrance, we do, of course, remember those who have laid down their lives in all conflicts. While my focus has been the great war, the sacrifice of those in world war two, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Falklands and other conflicts is no less. Of course, as a representative of Northern Ireland, I also want to pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice in Operation Banner.

Gavin Robinson: Touching on Operation Banner, and recognising that it was the longest continuous deployment for the British Army, it is important to recognise that this debate arose from a petition. Of the top 10 constituencies across the country who supported this debate today, five were from Northern Ireland, including my own constituency, demonstrating the strength of feeling, regard, appreciation and admiration that people from Northern Ireland have for the service given to us.

Carla Lockhart: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for a point well made.
According to the Ministry of Defence, 1,441 serving members of the British armed forces died in Operation Banner, 722 of whom were killed in paramilitary attacks. One hundred and ninety-seven Ulster Defence Regiment officers and soldiers were killed between 1 April 1970 and 30 June 1992. A further 61 ex-soldiers were murdered after they had resigned from the regiment. Three hundred and two Royal Ulster Constabulary men and women were murdered during the troubles, all because they wore the badge of the RUC. Twenty-nine prison officers lost their lives. As recently as November 2012, prison officer David Black, in my own constituency, was murdered by the enemies of Ulster. We think of his family today as they continue to mourn his passing.
While many of those who were left behind to mourn the loss of loved ones in world wars are now gone too, the tears still flow in many homes of those taken too soon during service in Northern Ireland. My thoughts are with them today, and our gratitude is forever with those who stood as a human shield against the terrorists who, by bomb and bullet, sought to destroy my country and my community. I reiterate my call to the Government today to protect those Northern Ireland veterans from vexatious prosecutions.

Darren Henry: Having served for many years in Her Majesty’s armed forces, it is an honour to have been selected to participate in this significant debate and to hear that powerful recollection from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). This year more than ever, as we reflect on those who sacrificed their lives in service to our nation, we come to recognise a familiarity whereby the very best in our community has come to the fore, demonstrating that service to others underpins our society.
Service in our constituency of Broxtowe is no new thing. We are proud to offer a home to Chetwynd barracks, a site that has played its part over the last century. In world war one, it was the site of the national shell-filling factory, operated by civilians, providing munitions in support of the western front. In July 1918, the site was levelled by a devastating explosion in which 139 people lost their lives and 250 were injured. It was the biggest loss of life in a single explosion in world war one.
I also want to take this opportunity to welcome Colonel Gavin Hatcher OBE to his position as Commander 170 Engineer Group and the Station Commander at Chetwynd. The barracks is home to the Royal Engineers of 170 Engineer Group, the Mission Training and Mobilisation Centre, Nottingham Troop, 721 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Squadron Royal Logistic Corps, the Army and maritime reserves, 350 Squadron of 33 Engineer Regiment and HMS Sherwood.
170 Engineer Group provides technical infrastructure specialist support to defence both at home and abroad, including most recently on Op Rescript, with support to the construction of the Nightingale hospitals and the wider testing capacity. I wish those currently deployed success in their endeavours and a safe return home to their families and Chetwynd. The Mission Training and Mobilisation Centre has been responsible in the last 10 years for training those individual augmentees who have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan in a regular reserve and civilian capacity, some of whom have not returned. In this time of crisis, we have perhaps been granted a new perspective of the 75th anniversary of the second world war. To my eye, we have been awarded the opportunity to see precisely that the liberties for which they fought are more valuable than we may ordinarily appreciate and that the debt we owe them is even greater than we may have previously assumed.
These uncertain times are incredibly testing for us all and we have had to adapt quickly to ensure that we are able to continue our lives with some normality while keeping as safe as possible. It is services such as the armed forces that have been integral to allowing that to happen. So in this time of need we must show the armed forces community that we have their back, just as they have ours. I can sum it up no better than to say, “We will remember them.”

Jessica Morden: It is a privilege to have time in this debate and to follow so many powerful speeches. It is a very important time to pay tribute to the men and women who served our country past and present and to their very enormous sacrifices made in defence of the freedoms we all enjoy today. It is always humbling to attend Remembrance events; I did so this weekend in Newport and across my constituency. I thank all those involved in ensuring that events could go ahead this year safely in the unique and challenging circumstances of the pandemic. While services were different on this occasion, they were no less poignant, especially with this year marking the 80th anniversary of the evacuation of Dunkirk and the battle of Britain and the 75th anniversary of the end of the second world war. So I pay tribute to all those who have served and made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. We remember them today. I also thank the charities, Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes and, in Newport, Newport Veterans, for all that they do locally to support veterans.
I also pay tribute to and record our appreciation for another group that played a hugely important role in both world wars and subsequent conflicts: the merchant navy. The history of the city of Newport as a key south Wales port is intricately linked with seafaring, and the close ties with the merchant navy are part of that. Nationally, the Merchant Navy Association, led with enthusiasm and passion by its chair, John Sail, who is stepping back this year after years of service, and its president, Vivien Foster, has done tremendous work to raise awareness of the dedication of seafarers over the past century, and supports those who are still with us. Its annual commemoration, Merchant Navy Day on 3 September, is proudly observed in Newport every year. We have an active branch of the association in Newport, stemming directly from the dedication of stalwarts such as Alan Speight and the late Bert Bale, who headed the local branch with passion since its  inception until his death in 2012. The Newport association’s work is helping to bring local veterans together and commemorate the sacrifices made by merchant seafarers in two world wars. On Saturday, we will meet at the merchant navy memorial to remember them.
The sacrifices were significant. At the outbreak of the first world war, 43% of the world’s merchant ships—some 20 million tonnes gross—was owned and operated by Britain. Those ships brought food and raw materials, and exported industries’ output to the world, including gold and steel from south Wales. Germany regarded the cutting-off of Britain’s trade routes as a vital means to victory, with the submarine becoming its principal weapon. The policy of unrestricted warfare meant that merchant navy ships were at constant risk of attack. The threat was not fully countered until the introduction of the convoy system in May 1917. None the less, German U-boats sank 6,924 allied ships—almost 13 million tonnes gross, with the loss of more than 14,600 merchant seafarers by the end of the war in 1918.
As we know, the role of the merchant navy was no less hazardous in the second world war, with convoys in the Atlantic, Mediterranean and elsewhere. Four thousand seven hundred British flagships were sunk, and more than 29,000 merchant seamen died, with a higher proportion of fatalities than all other services. Of those who perished, 442 were from Gwent and among them was 14-year-old Raymond Steed from Newport, who was killed onboard the SS Empire Morn when the ship was hit by a U-boat mine off the coast of Morocco. He was the youngest services recruit from Wales to die in the second world war, and the second youngest in Britain. There is no doubt that the efforts of the merchant navy in the second world war helped to keep the country going and enabled other services to operate. We should remember their bravery and importance. The hazards and risks that today’s merchant seamen and women face have changed, but they still exist.
It is important to emphasise that during times of past conflict, merchant sailors lived particularly harsh lives. They faced the terror of submarines every day, many lost close friends to torpedo attacks, and many were killed or wounded. The psychological trauma faced by merchant navy veterans cannot be understated. We have never had a full picture of the undiagnosed incidence of PTSD among merchant navy seafarers, and I hope that we can do more to look at this. I want to finish by saying how proud I am to represent a city with a rich seafaring tradition, and highlight the gratitude that we owe to them, alongside all those in our armed forces. It is a service that will remain a central part of our act of remembrance and debate.

John Redwood: Today, we remember all those who died in war. As we peer into the gaslit world of the great war or seek to look behind the blackout curtains of 1940s Britain, we realise that we follow two generations of giants. Many families have fathers and mothers, uncles and aunts, grandfathers and great grandfathers who died in battle that we might live in peace. They died in great fear of tyranny and their immediate circumstances that we might be free. They died for our country, so we can be proud of what they did. Some may seek to use powerful new search- lights of history to change the picture they want to see  or to play this down, but nothing can change who they were, what they did, nor the principles they carried to victory.
Today is a day for patriotism: that quiet, confident patriotism that characterises our country at its best; the patriotism that comes from being at peace with what those generations did and with the causes they fought. Our country does not go in for brash, aggressive nationalism, asserting ourselves by doing down others.
The unknown soldier was rightly honoured by king and country all those years ago in recognition that the world war was an immense strain on all, at home or at the front. It required the most enormous super-human efforts of everyone. The whole country was at war, not just the armed forces and the politicians. The best way we can be true to their memory is to enjoy the freedoms they left us. We can best pursue the path of peace with vivid memories of how, after war ends, the talking begins to reconcile the differences. We must learn from the failure of the great war to end the European conflict. We can best uphold the sacred candle of free speech, turning conflicts into exchanges of passionate words, not bombs and bullets. We can best uphold the right of everyone to a vote and a voice in a democratic society and uphold the right of small as well as large states to self-determination.
So let us vow today that, in this precious debating Chamber we enjoy, we will work to ensure that we will seek to talk and vote our way through our differences. Let us pray our country is not called again to perform the heroic and brave tasks we remember today. Now that states have so much greater power to kill and harm people than they did even a century ago, let us trust in democracy and freedom.
We have had to fight far too many wars. Today, we need a strong defence to keep us safe and to increase the chances of peace. The great war did not turn out to be the war to end all wars, though that was the promise. That was the hope of many in our nation, so let us today vow to find a way to bring us nearer to that most crucial of ambitions.

Stephen Doughty: On this particularly solemn day, it is also important that we have in our thoughts and prayers the people affected by the terrible and cowardly bomb attack at a Remembrance Day service in Saudi Arabia this morning, including British diplomats there. It is a terrible and despicable act at a time of remembrance.
I attended the quieter than usual, but no less significant, remembrance service in Penarth at the weekend, when I thought not only of my constituents and my constituency’s connections to all branches of our armed forces—and indeed the merchant navy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) spoke about—but about my own family, as many of us do at the time of remembrance.
I thought of my grandfather James, who served in the 1st Airborne Division. He was shot and wounded at Arnhem and taken prisoner of war. I thought of my great grandfather Peter, who was in the Somme with the King’s Own Scottish Borderers, and Ernest, who was in the Royal Field Artillery. I thought of my grandfather Harold, who served with the US army at the Bulge. It is  particularly important that this week we recognise the connections between our countries at that time of war, how we fought tyranny in Europe and would do so again. I also thought of my father, who during the cold war served for 16 years with the Royal Signals in Germany, with so many others. They are a generation who perhaps we have not recognised in the way we should for their service and ultimately their willingness to put themselves on the line in what could have been a nuclear apocalypse. That is certainly what many who were serving on the frontlines in Germany during the cold war expected.
Over the past few years, I have visited the Somme, Normandy and many other locations, including some with my hon. Friend on the other side, the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). It was so powerful to hear his words. He and I have spoken many times about his experiences. I have travelled to Bosnia and to battlefields with him, and they have been some of the most moving and affecting times that I have spent while a Member of this House.
I remember the work of those fantastic veterans’ charities in my constituency. I think of the work of the Royal British Legion. I have spent time with organisations such as Woody’s Lodge, which was set up in honour of Paul Woodland, a former member of the Royal Marines and the Special Boat Service who sadly lost his life on a training exercise in 2012 before he was due to be redeployed to Afghanistan. Woody’s was originally located in my constituency, but is now located in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). It does remarkable work in our communities, as does the Welsh Veterans Partnership. David Price, a former Welsh Guard who served in the Falklands, leads the work there with other veterans to ensure pathways to housing and support in our communities. He rightly advocates powerfully on behalf of veterans, for example, on issues related to the transition from military to civilian life—he would argue that the MOD needs to look more at working with smaller veterans’ charities in that—but also the rules around housing benefit, universal credit and how our benefits and support systems often do not work for veterans. He also works on the need for more specialist attention for those who have been medically discharged and need support from the Department for Work and Pensions and others.
I think about the contribution of the armed forces overall to Wales. A number of us spoke in a debate specifically on that in February this year. I think of our Army connections through the Royal Welsh, the Queen’s Dragoon Guards, the Welsh Cavalry and the Welsh Guards and their locations locally. I think of the proud traditions they all have. It has been a privilege for me to spend time with them at commemorative and training occasions over the past few years.
I think of our Navy connections and our Royal Marines connections. HMS Cambria, our fantastic new facility located in Cardiff Bay, was previously in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan. I think of our strong connections with the Royal Air Force, particularly St Athan, just down the road, and Guy Gibson, formerly of the Dambusters, 617 Squadron, who spent time in Penarth in my constituency.
I think also of our merchant navy traditions, and someone like Harold Boudier, who served on their Arctic convoys. He is now 94, and he proudly told me how he remembers VE Day in Scapa Flow. He still has  the pint glass that he drank from in celebration on that day. He takes it to the pub every Remembrance Sunday to remember those whom he served with in incredibly difficult circumstances.
Most importantly, I remember today our active armed forces personnel serving around the world, particularly those serving in the locations we often do not hear about, such as in Africa, including our service personnel in Mali, those who played a role in peacekeeping in South Sudan, those on training missions, those in Somalia and elsewhere, and those who responded to the Ebola outbreak so bravely and incredibly in Sierra Leone.
I think of those who, as has been spoken about, serve on the domestic front in our covid response. I had the honour of seeing our forces training as part of Operation Temperer a number of years ago for scenarios just like this. As was said earlier by the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood)—he is no longer in his place—they are some of the best planners, the best experts and some of the most dedicated people. They are exactly who we should have leading this response, particularly now as we roll out a vaccine. I pay tribute to all that they do.
We will remember. We will remember all those aspects of our armed forces, past and present.

Alun Cairns: It is a privilege to pay tribute to all those who served and are serving in the armed forces, whether in conflicts or peacekeeping duties around the world. It is appropriate that I follow my neighbour, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), as we have many common interests because of the interconnectivity of our constituencies. All the individuals we have referred to are heroes to us all and deserve our respect and greatest support. I had the privilege of visiting the Welsh Guards in Afghanistan two years ago. It was humbling to see them in action and to see the risks they were exposed to on a daily basis and the conditions in which they lived to act in our interests.
Before I come to the main theme about the footprint of the armed forces across our Union, I want to recognise the charities that support service personnel and veterans in my constituency, whether the cadets and the leaders of those cadets associations who provide leadership and training to young people, or the mentoring charity Woody’s Lodge, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It was started following the tragic death of Special Boat Serviceman Paul Woodland by his widow, Sian, and a team of supporters led by David Trotman.
Last Sunday, there were services throughout the many villages, towns and cities across the country, and my constituency was no different. More services will have taken place today. I pay tribute to those who organise events, raise money, fly standards and support veterans in so many ways throughout the year. They are all heroes—from the Royal British Legion, with Teresa Goodwin and Jimmy Green, who helped organise the service in Barry last Saturday, to Terry and Margaret McKeown and Howard Provis, who travel the country throughout the year to fly the Barry RAFA standard, and the late, great Bryan Foley, who was the cornerstone of such activities in the past, linking the Royal British Legion right through to scouting organisations. We salute them all for their service and for the work they always do and always have done.
My main theme relates to the footprint of the armed forces, their significance in defending, representing and sustaining the Union of the UK, and the link that they provide to our communities. When we think of symbols that reflect our Union, the armed forces are central. Through history, they have defended our liberty and maintained our freedom across all four nations, making the greatest of sacrifices in our interests. They play their full part in the fight against terrorism, wherever that may be, from cathedral cities such as Salisbury through to attacks and threats in all four nations of the UK, to combating the international terror threat, just as I saw in Afghanistan.
It is also relevant that, in the same way that they represent all four nations, the armed forces are made up from all communities and that their footprint reflects that. I am hugely proud that Wales, with 5% of the UK’s population, makes up 7% of the Army. Similarly, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland contribute with their garrisons, nuclear bases, RAF runways, training grounds and specialist centres. Communities play their part, too, often welcoming the disruption that it sometimes brings for them. Farmers in Wales make their land available for training, the Brecon Beacons are well known, and the mountains of Snowdonia are used for flying exercises.
I say gently to the Minister that those factors need to be remembered when reviewing basing is under consideration. Operational need must always come first, but decisions about basing cannot be made outside the context of the armed forces’ Union make-up and the communities that they support and recruit from. I am not asking for a quota; I simply ask that recognition of the armed forces’ geographical make-up is part of any base review. That would help them maintain a UK relevance with communities and would play a part in recruitment and retention, with people considering their sacrifices to be closer to the family.
St Athan in my constituency was designated as the primary Army site in Wales. The re-establishment of that Army site has not been as logical as I would have liked. There is a need for the Welsh Government and the MOD to come together to resolve the situation, reflecting the history but also looking forward to the challenges that we will have in the future.

Edward Davey: Our annual remembrance services and traditions, from the laying of wreaths to the wearing of poppies, must be permanent in the life of our nation, even as those who lived through those wretched times leave us, for we must continue to remember—remember what prices were paid and remember what sacrifices we still demand of the men and women of our armed forces.
Like other Members, I see these moments through the stories of those from my constituency who died, including the 623 men of Kingston borough who died in the great war, the 6,000 officers and men of our former local regiment, the East Surrey Regiment, who were killed, and Squadron Leader Ian Bazalgette, a Canadian-British pilot who grew up in New Malden in my constituency. His Lancaster bomber was severely damaged by anti-aircraft flak prior to arrival at his target on 4 August 1944, but he nevertheless continued to the target and completed his task before ordering his crew to bale out. When he found that two of his crew were too injured to bale out, he attempted to land the  burning plane to save the crew members rather than baling out himself. He died in the attempt and was awarded the Victoria Cross posthumously. So when I deliver my election leaflets in Bazalgette Gardens, New Malden, named after that brave pilot, I think of him and thank him for his sacrifice for democracy. I thank them all for their sacrifices for our freedoms.
There have been many wars in our country’s history, across many centuries, but the first and second world wars stand out for the dreadful death tolls and for what was at stake. They also stand out for another reason. Those wars touched the lives of every non-combatant: not only the families who were bereaved but the whole country, whose lives were on hold for the duration of the conflict. Whether or not they were directly involved in the war effort, they had to live with the restrictions, the rationing, the lights out and the wide-scale suspension of liberty as people collectively fought to preserve their freedoms.
It would be crass and wrong to draw direct parallels between the deprivations we are now suffering during this pandemic and the sacrifices and hardships that those millions suffered for years during those bloody wars, but we can learn lessons and perhaps draw some comfort, even inspiration, from them, not least because this pandemic is also affecting everyone. It has forced millions of people across our country and across our world to take a stand and do their bit, and while this pandemic is different in so many ways, we need that collective courage and discipline to beat the virus.
Today, we rely especially on people serving on the modern frontline: those working in our hospitals and the careworkers in our care homes. They are today’s civilian heroes. We also rely on some very clever people, such as our amazing scientists, to find a solution. They are part of the amazing international effort to find a vaccine to shorten the life of the pandemic, like some modern-day Alan Turing and the amazing people who served at Bletchley Park who shortened the second world war. Today’s enemy may be invisible, but it is deadly and it is impacting the everyday lives of millions.
Over the years when I have paid my respects at war memorials, my own personal thoughts have been influenced by my nana’s wartime stories. It was my granddad who went to fight in the Army, driving lorries in north Africa and Italy, but my nana, left at home to look after my mother, was also profoundly impacted by the war. It is her stories of looking after evacuees from London’s east end that have, for some reason, always stuck with me. She told stories of how she had to give up her own rations to feed and care for not only her own children—my mother—but the children of strangers, of how she took up smoking to calm her nerves and of her 10-mile cycle ride to the factory making radios for the submarines her younger brother, my Uncle Sam, was serving on. When my grandmother died, aged 90, I was so proud that in the congregation of 12 were two of her evacuees, who had come to say thank you. We are inspired by all their service.

Andrew Bowie: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and especially to follow the brilliant, eloquent speeches that we have had so far this afternoon. Over the years, I have  been privileged to observe Armistice Day and the two-minute silence in some unique and special places. Twelve years ago, as part of the team that organised the 90th anniversary of the great war, I was at the Cenotaph with Harry Patch, Henry Allingham and Bill Stone, the three remaining veterans of that awful conflict. I defy anyone who was there that day or remembers watching it on TV not to have been moved by the sight of Henry Allingham, who was determined to lay his own wreath at the foot of the Cenotaph to pay tribute to his fallen comrades but was sadly unable to do so.
In 2015, I was with colleagues who worked with me at the European Parliament in Loos in northern France on a cold, grey northern French morning as the gloom lifted upon row upon row of British gravestones in the cemetery, many of which were marked “Known unto God”. We witnessed the residents of that town paying tribute to the British soldiers, 7,766 of whom gave their lives at that battle. Many of them were from the north-east of Scotland and Tayside. They fell in defence of that town for their country and for the freedom of France and its allies.
Of course, I think of my great-uncle Samuel Coyle who, at 19 years old, a young lad who had never left Greenock in his life, fell at Gallipoli and lies buried alongside 600 other British and Commonwealth soldiers at the Pink Farm cemetery in Turkey. We often focus very much on the sacrifices made by the generation of world war one and world war two, but this weekend I was struck that we should, of course, also be thinking of the guys and girls who served in our armed forces much more recently. It struck me that, barely six years after British troops withdrew from Helmand province in Afghanistan and the end of that operation, the sacrifices made by the men, women and service families much more recently are, if not being forgotten, already fading from public consciousness.
I will not forget, nearly every morning in those awful days of 2007-08, being at Dartmouth or Portsmouth, on deployment overseas or, indeed, here in London, opening a newspaper or turning on the news to read yet another name or hear about another cortège passing through Royal Wootton Bassett. I remember while based at RAF Uxbridge remarking to an oppo of mine as we watched the festival of Remembrance how sad it was that the war widows’ procession, which when I was much younger had been predominantly made up of widows from the world war two generation, was much more the families of young men and women of my age.
Although life in the rest of the country went on pretty much as normal, as we fretted about the financial crisis, the coalition Government or preparations for the Olympics, our young boys and girls were under fire and were prepared to give their lives for our country and for us in a foreign field. We should never forget them or those men and women who should still be here with us today, who might otherwise be standing in the House today or walking among us in the streets.
This debate is titled “Remembrance, UK Armed Forces and Society,” and one of my earliest and clearest memories is as a seven-year-old going out with all my primary school to watch the Gordon Highlanders parade through Inverurie, a town Madam Deputy Speaker knows well, to mark their disbandment and amalgamation with the Seaforth and Cameron Highlanders to form 1st Battalion, the Highlanders, which subsequently became  the Highlanders, 4th Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland—4 Scots. In this identity, they have seen tours of duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I remember so many people being sad about that 200-year-old local link ending—the link to the north-east of Scotland, the unique, beautiful and fiercely independent part of Scotland where the regiment was proud to come from. The finest regiment in the world, as Winston Churchill called it, had come to an end.
The north-east is not unique in feeling that. Every area feels an attachment to its local regiment, and every area feels a deep sense of loss when the British Army, as it has throughout its history, goes through a reorganisation and modernisation process and merges, disbands, renames or moves regiments. However, there is a danger in removing that local link and taking the Army, or the Navy or Air Force for that matter, out of a local community, shrinking the size and therefore the visibility of the defence footprint across the country for whatever economic, strategic or political reason, that we run the risk of removing our armed forces, the men and women, from public consciousness and their becoming out of sight and out of mind.
I represent one of the biggest constituencies in the country. It covers Aberdeenshire, the fourth largest county in Scotland. Between Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, we have a population of 490,000 people and cover an area of 6,498 square miles. We have not one regular Army, Navy or Air Force presence. It is incumbent on all of us, as we mark Remembrance Day today and go about our lives from now on, to remember the men and women of the armed forces serving today. Although they are not physically present in all the communities where they used to be, we should make sure they are ever present in our thoughts as we move forward throughout the rest of the year.

Kevan Jones: I begin by declaring an interest as a trustee of the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation and a former Commonwealth war graves commissioner. I also join other hon. and right hon. Members in their recognition of the sacrifice made by those who died in the service of their country, and I pay tribute to the members of our armed forces who serve us today.
I particularly thank the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for his contribution to the debate. Although he sits on the Government Benches, I consider him a good friend. He did the House a service with his recollection, which must have been very difficult for him, so I thank him for that.
The annual act of remembrance is a relatively modern concept. It is only 100 years today that the first Armistice Day, with the interment of the Unknown Warrior and the two-minute silence, began. Next year will see 100 years of the poppy appeal. Prior to that, the involvement of this country in war was mainly recognised by the battles that we fought, and their names litter towns and villages across our nation. It was the first world war that galvanised the country in its remembrance, partly because it was the first war fought as a conscription nation. The public came together to start that act of annual remembrance, which I hope will go on for many centuries to come.
History is often written in terms of great events  and the great men of history, but I think it should be about the individual, because—as the hon. Member for  Beckenham eloquently said—these events are about individuals. It is important to remember those individuals, whether it is Will Lawson—the brother of one of my predecessors, Jack Lawson—who died at Ypres in 1915; or Sergeant Steven Campbell from Pelton in my constituency who was killed in Afghanistan in March 2010; or Nathan Cuthbertson, a 19-year-old who died in 2008 and whose parents I had the privilege of meeting when I was a Defence Minister. It is important to remember each and every one of them.
Remembrance is not about the glorification of war; it is about recognising the sacrifice and remembering, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, the reasons we need peace. There is a challenge for us all—as the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) mentioned—because, as our armed forces have contracted and the second world war generation slowly pass away, our connections with the armed forces become more remote. That is why it is more important that we keep that link, and I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion and the service charities that not only make sure we remember but support those who have been affected by war.
Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), I thank the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I was a commissioner for eight years and it was a great privilege to work with those men and women who work tirelessly throughout the world to ensure that people who gave their lives in the service of this country are remembered. The foundation of which I have the privilege of being a trustee is trying to ensure that those memories continue for future generations. As I say, it is not about glorification but about making sure that we remember. As time goes by, we need to ensure that remembrance continues, not just from the first and second world wars but, as has been openly said in this debate, of all those who have lost their lives through conflict.

Stephen Doughty: I agree that it is very important to remember more recent conflicts, for example the Falklands. Will my right hon. Friend join me in recognising a very positive moment today? It is nearly 40 years since the Falklands conflict, and while we remember those who lost their lives in that conflict, we recognise the work of those who have been de-mining. Today, the Falkland Islands celebrates the fact that mines have been completely removed. The conflict lives on not only in those who suffered and died, but in its physical impact, and it is great that that has now been removed from the Falkland Islands.

Kevan Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have had the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands on several occasions. We could ask anyone who goes to, for example, San Carlos and sits in the cemetery there. There is no more spiritual place in the world that I have been in terms of the honour and dedication given to those individuals for whom it is their last resting place.
Today is about reflection and keeping the memory of those individuals’ lives; it is about making sure we do not forget them. It is also important to remember what our servicemen and women are doing today on our behalf to preserve the way of life which we wake up every morning and take for granted, but we know is incredibly fragile in the very uncertain world of today.

Sarah Atherton: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones),who speaks tirelessly in support of our military. I am compelled to mention the moving speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). As he knows, I have an enduring connection with the 22nd Cheshire Regiment, and I particularly recall its peacekeeping role in the Balkans.
Remembrance Sunday in Wrexham was very different this year to any other, but we continued with a covid-safe service. I salute and commend the Royal British Legion, Wrexham County Borough Council and Wrexham.com for their can-do attitude in ensuring that this poignant event, held at the Royal Welch Fusiliers memorial, went ahead and was made accessible to as many people as possible through a live link. From this Wrexham veteran, I say thank you to them and to all the service charities that support Wrexham, including the veterans breakfast club, the Royal Artillery Association, Homes for Veterans Cymru and the Gresford British Legion, which provides a meeting place where veterans can have a pint, a chat, a game of dominoes and gain valuable peer support.
I was a solider back in the ’80s and ’90s when women joined a specific corps within the three services. I was in the Women’s Royal Army Corps and I am pleased to say that the military has moved on at pace. Today, around 13% of our reserve and regular armed forces are women—that is nearly 21,500 women in military uniform. Back in 1990, only 40% of jobs open to men were open to women, but now women can undertake any role in the armed forces, including that of fast jet pilots, submariners and special forces and frontline combat roles. Nothing is barred and we now have parity of the sexes. A great milestone has been reached. It is a success that we see parity and equality of opportunity for women in the military, and our veterans have been helped by the introduction of a covenant, the railcard and the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Billto stop vexatious claims.
Despite the positive advancements for women in the military and for female veterans, there are still issues to address, ranging from obstacles to career progression to a lack of economic activity when back in civvy street. This is causing problems not only for the operational effectiveness of our military, but for female recruitment and retention.
It is an honour to sit on the Defence Committee with colleagues from across the House and we realise the great improvements that have been made for and by women in the armed forces. However, the fact remains that women continue to be over-represented in the service complaints system. While there are now great opportunities, the journey to success is often paved with discrimination, harassment and bullying. While the door to equality has been opened across the House, we must make sure that those doors are not shut by the ingrained laddish culture of the military. The words “laddish culture” are not mine; they were the words used by the Chief of the Defence Staff to acknowledge that there is a problem.
As a response, the Defence Committee has proposed to run a Sub-Committee, which I hope to chair, looking at the experiences of women in the military—those serving and veterans. This will provide a platform for women to talk about their experiences, including the  positives, so that we can champion what a great career the military is, and the negatives, so we can rectify and ensure that future generations of women in uniform have total equality in practice, as well as in theory.
The problems faced by serving women and veterans have not happened on one Government’s watch. They have evolved over decades, from Aden to Afghanistan, and it is all our duty to acknowledge and support a cultural change as we go forward. Britain has a global reputation to uphold—a reputation for equality, fairness, honouring our troops and looking after our veterans. We can and should do something about the problems faced by women in the military and the culture that they are subjected to. I, and I know many of my colleagues, will do all we can to ensure that the voices of military women and veterans are heard.

Matt Western: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who clearly has so much knowledge about life in the services. Today is an important day to pay tribute to our armed forces for their service and ultimately their sacrifice, for the conflicts they have fought and for the work they have done throughout the world to preserve peace and to combat Ebola in Sierra Leone and other countries, and for the important civil work that they have done, not least on our islands with covid-19.
Sunday was not a normal Remembrance Sunday. It was important that we paid our respects, as always, to show our gratitude. Normally, it would be an opportunity to meet veterans such as Len, Stuart or Paul, as I would have done last year to talk about some of their experiences, or even Rusty, who is now getting very old but is one of our great, gallant airmen of yesteryear. In Warwick, we would normally see hundreds of people around the war memorial, honouring the 358 men and one woman from Warwick who died in the great war, and the subsequent 112 who lost their lives in world war two. We would see the march past the war memorial and hear the sound of the local bagpiper, Andy Wheeler, and the last post played by a bugler from Warwick School. In Leamington, there are 550 names on the war memorial from the first war, and many hundreds following from the second war and subsequent conflicts—all courageous, all gallant. Among those names, there are recipients of the Victoria Cross: Lance-Corporal William Amey, Captain Arthur Kilby, Lieutenant John Cridlan Barrett, and perhaps most significantly Private Henry Tandey, the most decorated British private soldier of the first war, who in the space of six weeks in the autumn of 1918 was awarded a Distinguished Conduct Medal, a Military Cross and the Victoria Cross.
However, I want to recognise his near neighbours, just down Kenilworth Street from where he grew up: the Tims brothers, Fred, William and Jack, all lost in the same conflict. I want to remember in particular their mother Esther and so many families who lost so many. The strength of feeling was best illustrated by Warwick Poppies in 2018—62,500 hand-knitted poppies decorated our church at St Mary’s in Warwick. The scale of loss is perhaps best illustrated by a map produced by the Leamington history group that showed every household across the town that had suffered a loss in the great war. It was virtually every house in those terraces in the centre of Leamington, and some of those houses had  multiple stickers. That map showed how communities were literally decimated: so many towns, villages and cities, if they had maps, would show the same.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was right to say that we should think about the individual. All of us will have lost family in those wars and in subsequent conflicts, perhaps relations in this country or from other Commonwealth nations. This is perhaps illustrated, if I may, by my own great-uncle Clarke Duff, who in 1915 left the farm in Ontario, Canada to fight in Flanders fields, but would sadly never till a field again.
We have much to be thankful for, and so many to thank, including those who served and made the ultimate sacrifice in subsequent conflicts. I thank the Royal British Legion for its work, and particularly Tony Glover and Pat Edgington for the extraordinary work they do in raising so much money locally. I also thank other charities for their work: Help for Heroes, and people like Michael Vallance and Charlie Sabin, and the Royal Air Forces Association, and people like Patrick Fitzgerald and Dave Brown.
Finally, can we remember and think of all those who were left behind and lost so much of their lives? I am thinking of the families and loved ones: people such as Esther Tims, who I mentioned, for whom life can barely have been worth living, and those friends of my parents—all women, who we referred to as aunts—whose boyfriends never returned and who would never marry, but would live with the loss all their life. These are the people I wish to remember and pay tribute to.

James Sunderland: When the guns stopped in 1918, at the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month, the curtain effectively fell on the most devastating world war we have ever seen. I have never understood why we call it the “great war”, because there is nothing great about warfare whatsoever, but it may just be that the greatness refers to those who fought in such appalling conditions and gave so much. Exactly 100 years ago today, the unknown warrior was interred at Westminster Abbey, and the poppy is still worn with pride by so many people today as a memory of the appalling circumstances of Flanders fields and elsewhere.
Today, many wars later, Armistice Day is commemorated by so many people, but for different reasons. For world leaders, politicians and dignitaries, it is about marking democracy—marking the freedoms we have, and the sacrifices that were made. For veterans groups, it is about coming back together in solidarity to mark their service and their comrades. For veterans like me, it is about thinking back on former colleagues, friends and soldiers, many of whom are no longer here with us today. For families, it is about handing medals down and wearing them with pride. For the rest of us, it is simply about saying thank you.
One of the most poignant experiences of my life took place last summer, in June, at the D-day 75 commemoration in Portsmouth. It was a spectacular, magnificent event that had everything: royalty, Presidents, Chancellors and Prime Ministers; fantastic fly-pasts; ships in the Solent; and brilliant stage shows. But for me it was all about those wonderful veterans, resplendent in their immaculate uniforms, polished boots, polished medals and shiny brass. The twinkle in their eye was matched only by the brilliance of the sunshine.
Talking to these heroes, these living legends in their 90s and 100s, two things really struck me. The first was a sense of fuss, as they wondered, “Why all the fuss? Why are the Government and all these nations going to so much trouble for us?” They had a sense of bewilderment, as they thought, “We were just doing our job.” Funny thing that, they did their job and fantastically so. Bizarrely, they also had a sense of shame. When I scratched the surface with many of these fantastic people, I found it was a sense of shame that they had lived long and fulfilling lives whereas so many of their friends and comrades never came home. That is exactly why we remember these important events on Armistice Day. We do so to pay homage to those who have gone before and to those whom we owe so much.
Before I finish, I wish to make some quick points that I believe are relevant to today. First, I was proud earlier this year to introduce the Desecration of War Memorials Bill to this House with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), a good friend of mine. It is absolutely right that we bring that legislation into law. Secondly, the Government, in their 2019 manifesto, were clear that they wanted to bring the armed forces covenant into statute. I absolutely endorse and support it, and look forward to the Bill coming to this House in January or February next year. I will be supporting it, as will the all-party groups, I am sure.
Lastly, I am clear in my mind that when someone serves as a soldier in this country—when they wear the uniform, bear arms, serve the Crown and go on operations—they are British, wherever they come from. I want to make the point right now: this nonsense about visa fees for Commonwealth soldiers must stop. I also hope that we can be magnanimous in giving an amnesty to our Fijian friends who still suffer today. I am grateful for the opportunity to be here, after many years of service, and I thank all of those who have gone before.

Fleur Anderson: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), and I join him in hoping that we can achieve an amnesty for the Fijian soldiers, who have suffered from bureaucracy and have lost out greatly as a result. It is also an honour to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), whose contribution was moving indeed.
I joined the service in Roehampton on Sunday. It was small but moving service at the memorial on Putney heath, where we remembered the names of all those who had died during the wars. I also remembered the loss in my own family. There is a sadness at the heart of my family, which stems back to a moment in 1915, when a military wife, my great-grandmother, stepped off a boat. She was six months pregnant, she had a two-year-old and she was going home to Ireland to give birth to her child. As she stepped off that boat, she was given a telegram that told her that her husband had died. He had died in battle in Ahwaz, in modern-day Iran, in the Mesopotamian campaign. He was Major Reginald Bond, my great grandfather. So my grandmother never knew her father and my mother never knew her grandfather. She remains extremely sad and feels the loss of that to this day, because the effect of war carries on through generations.
It was my honour to be an aid worker in Bosnia during the war there and for many years afterwards. I saw the devastating impact of war both at the time and  afterwards. I saw the importance of building peace and, in order to do that, of remembrance every day, every year. That is why it is so important that we have these moments of commemoration and remembrance across our country, and that is why it is so important that we are having this debate.
I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on remembrance and to celebrate and remember our armed forces in a year when we mark 75 years since victory was achieved. I would like to pay tribute to our armed forces, to the forces families and to veterans. We expect the highest standards and values of our armed forces, and in turn, they continuously display those values of courage, integrity, loyalty, discipline and selfless commitment to our country. That has been vividly highlighted recently by the covid-19 response. From the very beginning, the military stepped up and provided assistance to our frontline NHS services, and I thank them for that.
In my constituency of Putney, we are honoured to have an excellent Royal Marine Reserve unit based in Southfields. The Royal Marine Reserve is an integral part of the Royal Marines, with members of the reserve having served in recent operations in the middle east and been deployed on exercises that take them from the jungles of central America to the Arctic circle. I pay tribute to the bravery and dedication that those volunteers show for our country.
I also pay tribute to all those non-combatant civilians who have died in conflict. Warfare devastates all members of communities, including in my constituency during the second world war, when 81 people were killed and 248 people were injured when a bomb fell on a dance hall on Putney High Street. I am sure it was aimed at Putney bridge, but it killed so many people by mistake.
One hundred and two years ago, the armistice that ended the first world war and brought the devastation of that conflict to a close was signed. On this Armistice Day, we must remember the sacrifice of those who fought, and we must continue to strive for and redouble our efforts to work for a world that is free of conflict, free of violence and does not devastate families for generations to come.

Richard Drax: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), to take part in the debate and to listen to so many poignant and touching speeches with so many memories.
On Sunday, I attended the Remembrance Sunday parade at Nothe Fort in Weymouth in my constituency. During the two-minute silence, I found myself reflecting, as I do every year, on various military missions, jobs and roles. This year, it was the special forces that took my mind. I am sure that Members will recall the storming of the Iranian embassy back in 1980, when I was serving as a young soldier. Then, we held in awe the dash, daring and courage of the handful of our special forces who put all their training into practice, to devastating effect. As if we needed reminding, the remarkable Royal Marines from the Special Boat Service pulled off a similar coup off the Isle of Wight recently, roping down on to a tanker at night to rescue a crew threatened by violent stowaways.
What is so extraordinary is that we hardly, if ever, get to know the names of these brave men of our special forces, even if they fall in the course of their duty. They  just do their job quietly and professionally, seeking no reward other than the unique bond that exists between those who serve. These men are drawn from the best who serve on land and sea and in the air in our country, all of whom are prepared to lay down their lives for our freedom, just like their predecessors in two world wars and countless other conflicts, including Northern Ireland and the Falklands.
On this Armistice Day, many fine words have been expressed in support of our armed forces, and rightly so, but it falls to us, the politicians, to ensure that words are supported by actions, for it is we who put our courageous men and women in harm’s way. “Judge a man by his actions,” my father used to say. In this instance, the action to which I refer is the action we must take to invest in our armed forces to ensure that they can fulfil their role and face future threats with confidence and the right equipment.
This is, rightly, a solemn occasion, but I would not be doing my duty if I did not impress on those on the Front Bench that spending 2%—or thereabouts—of GDP on defence is woefully inadequate. I hope that the hundreds of billions that we are spending on this pandemic will not affect the future funding of our armed forces. We live in a fast-changing and unstable world; who knows when we will have to react to another call to arms to meet our responsibilities?
On this special day, I pay tribute to all those who have served and made the final sacrifice. We are indebted to them and, as I have said, to those who serve today. We must never forget; neither must we in this House let them down.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). May I say how much I have enjoyed the contributions from all right hon. and hon. Members today? It has been one of those debates: I honestly believe—I know this will be your opinion as well, Madam Deputy Speaker —that this House shines when we speak about the things that bring us all together. It is always good to have an opportunity to do that.
I declare an interest as a former Ulster Defence Regiment soldier who served in the Province under Operation Banner when I was 18—I had a full head of hair then as well. I have fond memories of that, but that is another story for another day. It was my honour to put on the uniform and serve Queen and country in that way.
What a different Remembrance Sunday we had this year. I have never in my life encouraged people to stay home during the service, yet time and again in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday the girls in the office were saying, “I am sorry, but the British Legion is very clear this year: we can have only 15 people laying wreaths at the memorial and we cannot have big crowds.” It is hard to do that, because usually when we speak to people we tell them to get up, wrap up and stand up, and they always do in great numbers. But this year it was very different.
I was privileged, as the MP for Strangford, to be able to attend staggered services throughout the constituency. At each, the council and the Royal British Legion had ensured that no more than 15 invited guests were in attendance. We were well distanced, as elderly veterans stood in the vicinity with their backs as straight as age would allow and tears in their eyes as they cast their  minds back to those they had loved and lost. It moves us greatly—we have all spoken of it and others will speak of it as well—when we look back on those veterans who gave their all and remember them.
Northern Ireland is a place of service, with so many having served in the armed forces—as many gallant and hon. Members have mentioned; in particular I mark out the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) as a dear, gallant friend and someone in the House whom I hold in high regard for his courage—the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Prison Service. There is no governmental estimate of the veteran population, but the Royal British Legion has estimated that it is roughly 115,000 people in Northern Ireland, in a population of 1.8 million—and we should take into account the fact that a fifth of the population is under 16. That means that 12.5% of our population has served our nation. I, my party—the Democratic Unionist party—and many Members from both sides of the Chamber wish to make sure that the veterans of Northern Ireland get equal recognition and help from the Government. We look forward to that happening.
I am very pleased to have had the opportunity, over the past few years since I became an MP, to run a coffee morning for the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association. We do it every year, but this year we could not do it because—let us be honest—we could not bring the people together. They are a vulnerable group of people, including the mothers of those who have served and some of those who served in the past. Ever mindful that we could not butter a scone, pour a cup of coffee or tea, or give out the Irish stew that we always give out as well, we wrote to all the groups and companies across the Strangford constituency, and this year we raised some £5,000—without even buttering a scone. It is tremendous. The people of Strangford have been continuously generous; I thank them and I thank in particular the organiser of SSAFA, Georgie Carlisle, and all those who have the good old-fashioned British values of service and duty. Their passion and dedication are truly an inspiration to me.
I am pleased to see that support that has been given to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill for here on the mainland. I thank the Minister for his work and say that I supported the Bill when it came forward. I make a plea to him tonight. I have spoken to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I understand that there is a willingness to ensure that Northern Ireland follows suit, and that would be good news for me and good news for all of our veterans.
We cannot have a speech such as this and leave out the 36th Ulster Division and the Battle of the Somme. Their devotion to duty won admirers from across the whole world. We also fought alongside two Irish divisions at that time, which shows that, before partition, we were altogether. Were it that we were altogether now.
In conclusion, we will remember them. That is our promise to them. We will, as the nation of Northern Ireland, continue to serve our Queen and country with distinguished honour, and all the veterans deserve honour in response. I know the path that must be trod, but I am asking this Government to tread it with us and with those deserving veterans. The veterans of Northern Ireland deserve the same as the veterans here on the mainland. Let us make that happen and let us honour them.

Robbie Moore: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and to hear the many contributions from right hon. and hon. Members from across this House. In particular, may I say how good it was to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)?
The coronavirus pandemic has disrupted much of normal life, not least Remembrance, but while we cannot be together in the way that we would normally like to be together to reflect on those who have given so much for our country—our veterans and those serving in the military—we have done so in our own quiet way. This pandemic has highlighted to us the crucial role that our armed forces play not just in protecting our country on the frontline, but in many of our country’s biggest logistical challenges, too. Just last week, we saw the Army help roll out mass testing in Liverpool. Earlier this year, they played their part in establishing the new NHS Nightingale hospitals, including Harrogate serving my constituency. Before the pandemic, when we were threatened by flooding in Ilkley, the Yorkshire Black Cats Regiment helped establish temporary flood barriers.
The armed forces community is a crucial part of my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley. Keighley is, of course, the original home of Captain Sir Tom Moore. We are all so proud of Captain Tom’s service to our country and, of course, of his recent galvanising impact in bringing the country’s heart together in helping to fundraise for our beloved NHS.
Last year, I was delighted to meet the Keighley armed forces and veterans breakfast club, which is one of the growing network of clubs where veterans and those serving in the military can come together and share stories, and I have heard many of them from them. Earlier this year on Armed Forces Day, I met my constituent Luke Davison from the Third Battalion Yorkshire Regiment. Luke joined the armed forces at the age of 16. Having completed two tours of Afghanistan, he is now aged 31 and a veteran. Luke told me about the struggles that he faced after leaving the forces, settling into civilian life and finding a new purpose. I know that Luke has gone on to be heavily involved in bringing the people of Keighley together to celebrate Armed Forces Day. I am sure that all Members of the House will congratulate him on doing that.
Attitudes towards our veterans are changing. Veterans have a wealth of transferable skills and employers want to hire them, but it is incumbent on us all to do everything we can to defend, protect and support our armed forces veterans. I am proud to see the steps that the Government are taking. Those who served in our armed forces put their lives on the line to save and protect us, and we must do whatever we can to show them our gratitude. Let us take a moment today to remember those whom we have lost and thank our armed forces and veterans for their service.
A couple of years ago, I was honoured to visit Tyne Cot cemetery on the outskirts of Passchendaele in Belgium, where those from across the Commonwealth who fought together to protect our freedoms now lay in rest together. It was an incredibly moving experience. Let me quote the words that I saw on the grave of a young private who died in 1918 aged just 19, and was also from the West Yorkshire regiment: “Sunshine and shadows past, but loving memories ever last. We will remember them.”

John Lamont: It is a pleasure to follow the moving and powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore).
I live in the town of Coldstream on the banks of the River Tweed. It was there in 1650 that General Monck formed a regiment to march south and restore Charles II to the thrones of Scotland and England. When Monck died in 1670, his regiment took as its name the Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards. Today it is the oldest continuously serving regiment in the British Army.
Members will be accustomed to seeing the Coldstream Guards in their red coats and bearskins at trooping the colour, but that image is misleading. They are a true fighting force. They captured New York city during the American war of independence, fought Napoleon in Egypt and Portugal and were in the Crimea. They fought on the western front in the first world war. In the second world war, they fought in France, the middle east and north Africa. They were sent to Malaya, Aden, Northern Ireland, the Gulf, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Their history is the history of British warfare.
People in the Scottish Borders are proud of our link to the Coldstream Guards. It is when we discover a link to past that the pages of history come alive. We all have war memorials in our constituencies. The cenotaph at Jedburgh Abbey, the statue of victory in Wilton Lodge Park in Hawick and the stone cross towering above Ettrick Terrace in Selkirk are just three of the scores to be found across the Scottish Borders. They are landmarks that we have known since childhood. But it is when we go up to them and read the names inscribed on them that the real significance hits us—when we see two or even three men with the same surname, and imagine what the impact of that loss must have been on that family.
The people who erected these memorials were not commemorating historical events; they were honouring their sons and grandsons, brothers and fathers, friends and neighbours. They were making the memory of their sacrifices permanent landmarks. In today’s debate, and in services and events held around the country, we are playing our part in keeping the memory of those sacrifices alive.
The pandemic has undoubtedly disrupted our acts of remembrance. It is harder to come together as we usually do, but in time we will be able to come together again and to enjoy our lives as before. We will be able to see our friends and families, and enjoy going to the pub, to a restaurant, on holiday or to the cinema. We have all taken these freedoms for granted all our lives. They are freedoms that were won for us in battles against tyranny by young men whose names are inscribed on war memorials, and they are freedoms and pleasures that those young men were never able to know again, after they left their homes and families behind to go to war. When we are once again able to go out, live our lives and enjoy our freedoms, it will be as appropriate a time as any to pause for a moment and to say with feeling, “We will remember them.”

Mark Pritchard: I join colleagues in thanking all those who currently serve and who have served previously, and, of course, those who served and  gave their lives for our freedoms. Freedom is not free. There have been huge sacrifices by our armed forces in pretty much every decade for the last 150 years. Today, of course, we think of the two great wars, but there have been other conflicts in which people from my constituency have served, including Korea, operations in Sierra Leone and ongoing operations in the Sahel right now. Of course, there has also been the distinguished service of many hon. and gallant Members in Northern Ireland, not least my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and others.
If I may, I would like to go on a brief tour—not an operational tour, but a tour of thanks—of my constituency and talk about the huge contribution that Shropshire folk make to defence. First, MOD Donnington, which is a huge base, is the home of the 11th Signal Brigade, West Midlands, of the 15th Royal Logistic Corps and of other operations perhaps not so well known. There has been a huge investment in the Defence Fulfilment Centre in the last few years. Both uniformed and civilian personnel have made a huge contribution to the covid effort in making sure that kit and equipment was distributed around the country. I would like to pay tribute to all those who have played a part in that effort and continue to do so. I would also like to recognise the work of the Royal Military Police, and in particular 174 Provost Company, Royal Military Police. The company is not particularly well known in the county of Shropshire, but it does a huge amount of work across the county and beyond.
I hope those who are part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme RAF will take time at some point, post covid, to visit RAF Cosford. As many will know, it is the second largest operational RAF base in the world, with several thousand personnel and a range of activities contributing to UK defence and security, of which I will mention just a few now. We have the Defence School of Aeronautical Engineering, the Defence School of Photography, and we have an RAF band, which is good news. Of course, we—I say we, but I mean the UK—provide international personnel, not just UK personnel, with defence training, particularly in engineering. There is also the RAF School of Physical Training, perhaps somewhere I should visit more often, but I am none the less very proud to have it in my constituency. We have 605 Squadron, which many will know provides logistics and police personnel mobilisation in support of RAF commitments around the world. There is also No. 1 Radio School—without signals, where would we be? I would like to pay tribute to them.
While the Minister for Defence People and Veterans is on the Front Bench, I would like to pay tribute to him and to his personal service in the armed forces. I say to him that I am pretty sure the Government will be smart enough not to move him out of the Government, but I hope, very selfishly, they will not promote him—although perhaps he could be promoted to Minister of State within the Department—but let him keep his veterans hat on, because he is doing a fantastic job in that role. I pay tribute to him.
I would like to put on record my thanks to all those related to the men—and it was mostly men at the time of the first world war—of the King’s Shropshire Light Infantry. Over 5,000 fell in that awful war, and it then amalgamated into the Light Infantry and is now the Mercian Regiment. I pay tribute to the Mercian Regiment  in Shropshire as well. In my final few seconds, I would like to pay tribute to all the women who serve in the armed forces. I am glad that we have had a particular highlight from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) about her service and what she is going to do to ensure that we continue to expand the role of women in the armed forces. Freedom is not free, as I said when I started. We pay tribute to all of those who have fallen and we pay tribute to those who continue to serve.

Caroline Ansell: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) as he pays tribute to all those who we must remember today in this debate, which is an important opportunity to reflect and to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. It is also an opportunity to highlight ongoing need and pay tribute to those who provide support. I echo the calls for funding for veterans’ charities, as raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood).
As a nation, when we came together in the shock and distress following the first world war and looked at the scale of loss, not a single family was left untouched by conflict. My own great-grandfather and his son, my great-uncle, served in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders infantry. I cannot imagine what they went through, but I remember and feel for those they left behind whose lives were so impacted by their loss. The truth is that when men—men then, but men and women today—step up and make that commitment to serve, they take their families with them, wherever they go, in their hearts, but they also bind, in part, their families to their fate.
I was made incredibly aware of that when, in a past life before I came to this place, I worked as a teacher in a boarding school and was in loco parentis for teenage girls, the daughters of military families. I think everybody here will remember where they were when they heard the shock news on 9/11. I remember where I was. I was with them, and they felt it, in a way not experienced by other students. Calls home were made and anxious days followed. They were on alert as they connected with their homes and with their families across the world, wherever they might have been serving. I echo the petition made today by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) in his endorsement of the “Living in our Shoes” report regarding the important contribution that our military families make. It is so important that we support them.
Back in the day, there was little expectation of support and little understanding. In the late years of his life, a very well loved and remembered Eastbourne resident, Henry Allingham, who was the last surviving veteran of the great war and, for a short time, the world’s oldest man, shared his experiences. Without testimonies such as his, we could not begin to understand and comprehend the experience of that generation, but just talking—a simple thing, really—makes a world of difference.
I wear my poppy with pride. It is the symbol of our remembrance, but it is also a very important way in which we can help to provide for our veterans through the Royal British Legion’s poppy appeal. Eastbourne and Willingdon, my home constituency, is traditionally very generous. I hope that through that demonstration, our veterans see the great value that we place on their service and our serving personnel see the great value  that we place on their contribution. I hope, too, that it inspires those who would apply for a military life. I say that with some feeling as a patron of the Military Preparation College in Eastbourne. It is mission critical for me to know that in inspiring a new generation to serve our country, and potentially to put their lives on the line, we stand behind them, and the poppy says that to me.
One organisation in Eastbourne that stands behind our veterans is Blue Van, a charity that provides support—physical, mental and financial—for veterans in my constituency. It has been able to support over 50 local veterans, some of whom have gone so far as to say that without that organisation they would not be here today. I am, unusually, here today—

Nigel Evans: Order. I am sorry but we have to leave it there—you have overrun the five minutes.

Maria Miller: This Armistice Day, as we have done for 100 years, we remember those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice and given their lives for their country, and this year we remember 100 years since the interment of the unknown soldier in Westminster Abbey, and 100 years since Sir Edwin Lutyens’ monumental Cenotaph was unveiled. Between 2014 and 2018 we marked the centenary of the first world war in so many extraordinary ways. I had the privilege to chair the first world war centenary committee, which put in place a programme of commemoration marking the start of the conflict at St Symphorien and then an extraordinary series of cultural events such as “Lights Out” and the iconic poppy sculptures. We often struggle as a country to commemorate war, conflict and death, and I would like to pay tribute to 14-18 NOW, the organisation that persuaded politicians that art could help a nation understand and connect emotionally and intellectually with an event that happened 100 years ago, and help, I think for the first time, engage the nation with how the first world war shaped a generation and generations to follow. Perhaps we should do that more often.
The format of remembrance this year may have changed, but the vast debt of gratitude we owe to those who serve and the families who support them does not, and I join those who have paid tribute to the Falkland Islanders and those who fought for their freedom, too. Members of organisations in my constituency, including the Royal British Legion, Basingstoke and Deane Veterans Club and many others, usually come together in an act of solemn worship in remembrance at our town memorial; this year we had to do things differently, but we still had acts of remembrance that were undiminished.
In today’s debate we are not just marking Armistice Day as part of that but are also considering the petition calling for a further strengthening of the armed forces covenant, signed by more than 150 of my constituents. The armed forces covenant was introduced in 2011 and was a real statement of the moral obligation that exists between the nation, the Government and the armed forces. That commitment was further reinforced in the commitments this Government made in last year’s election, including to acknowledge and commemorate the invaluable contribution of diaspora communities in the past and to recognise the contribution in the present day of so many from beyond our shores, such as the Gurkhas.
Indeed, we should remember the contribution of the Commonwealth members of the armed forces today. More than 4,000 personnel from Commonwealth countries serve in our armed forces, and in my constituency I am proud to have one of the largest veteran Gurkha communities in the country. Many Nepali veterans, and, indeed, other Commonwealth veterans, want, after they have served, to continue to live here, but too often the cost of that can be daunting and at odds with the commitment and loyalty they have shown to our country. I hope the Minister will look carefully at the Royal British Legion campaign on behalf of those people, so that as a nation we can respect those who have chosen to serve our country in this way.
Caring for the health of our armed forces and veterans is a matter this Government take very seriously, and the armed forces covenant annual report sets out the real progress made, particularly supporting veterans with mental health problems, with more than 17,000 veterans receiving specialist support and complex treatment. I know that the Minister is aware that serving personnel can use the facility in my constituency at Parklands hospital in Basingstoke, home to an MOD unit providing mental health services for serving personnel. I met medical staff there and people who were receiving treatment from across the south-east of England. I also had the privilege to be invited to the opening of a new therapeutic garden there, which I hope I can invite the Minister to visit when conditions allow, because facilities like that can make a real difference to people’s lives— hearing from medical professionals, such as Dr Karl Marlowe, and patients, the value of that facility is absolutely clear.
As well as remembering those who have fallen, we must remember those whom we continue to support. It is clear that this Government’s commitment to the armed forces covenant is undiminished, but it is also clear that there is much more to do.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: To resume his seat no later than 4.33 pm, and with apologies to the almost 30 Members who did not get in to make their contributions, I call Elliot Colburn.

Elliot Colburn: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and speak in such an important debate. I begin by thanking the armed services community in Carshalton and Wallington. We often speak in this place about the importance of and the debt of gratitude we owe to our armed forces as we honour the bravery and sacrifice of those men and women who fought for the peace and freedoms we enjoy today. I want to look at one of the areas where we can begin to repay that debt of gratitude: mental health support.
In doing so, I want to remember a very special man, my grandfather, Derek Haighton, who sadly is no longer with us and did not live to see me elected to this place. My grandad Derek was devoted to Queen and country and keen to sign up as a member of the armed forces. I will never forget the story used to tell my brothers and I when we were younger of the day he signed up to   the Army. On arrival at the recruitment centre, he was asked a number of personal questions and, all of a sudden, told to take a walk, have a think about what he had said and come back. He did so. He thought about the question he had been answering when he was interrupted and asked to leave—it was about his age, and he was too young. Like so many others during that time, he went back and made himself a bit older so that he could join and serve the country that he loved. Indeed, he did so during the Korean War.
On leaving the Army, soon after the Korean war, my grandad Derek served out the rest of his working life in the Metropolitan police, but he never lost his passion for the armed forces. To his dying day, he spent his free time researching and taking part in anything to do with his favourite regiment, the historic Rifle Brigade. He always had stories to tell about the armed forces, but it was not until I was older that I realised that he rarely, if ever, spoke about his own time in the Army. Later, my mum explained why. My grandfather, like so many others—those of us who have never served can scarcely imagine this—experienced true horrors and saw such horrific scenes that he lived with the mental scars for the rest of his life. Of course, in those days there was little, if any, mental health support for our veterans.
That is why I am so proud that the Government stand firm by the armed forces covenant, because it states that priority treatment should be given to veterans. I am proud, as someone who used to work in the national health service, that in 2015 the NHS updated its constitution to ensure that it reflected that responsibility. Indeed, NHS expenditure on veterans’ mental health has nearly doubled in the last four years alone. In December 2018, NHS England announced an extra £10 million for a dedicated crisis service for veterans. That extra funding was also to enable the roll-out of the first ever veteran-friendly GP surgeries and hospitals. I welcome that, in the 2020 spring Budget, the Government announced a further £10 million for the armed forces covenant fund trust to support projects that support veterans’ mental health. We can never really express in words the debt of gratitude that we owe our veterans and people like my grandad Derek, but we can make up for it in the actions that we take and in making sure that we are there for them.

Chris Evans: Today has seen the House at its very best. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the House has almost shone. Those who have served and continue to serve can rest assured that they have a powerful voice in this place. That voice was heard in the Minister’s poignant opening speech and in the moving speech by my friend, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), when he bravely talked about his personal experiences of the horrors of war. It was in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who reminded us of the innocent victims of war. It was there in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has made it his mission since he came to this place to speak up for our troops.
There was also hope in many of the contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) reminded us about clearing mines on the beaches of the Falkland Islands so that families can now play where once there were bullets and  mines. Let us therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) asked, all come together tonight at 7 pm, look to the stars and remember our fallen.
On this day 100 years ago, the second anniversary of the armistice that ended world war one, the body of the unknown warrior was drawn in a procession to the Cenotaph. A new war memorial on Whitehall was then unveiled by King George V. At 11 o’clock, there was a two-minute silence, and the body was then taken to Westminster Abbey, where it was buried at the west end of the nave. The text inscribed on the tomb reads:
“They buried him among the kings because he had done good toward God and toward his house”.
Since that day, wreaths of poppies, the symbol of remembrance and hope for a peaceful future, have been laid at the foot of the Cenotaph. Even though we have lost the first world war generation and those who fought in the second world war are fewer in number with each passing year, still they come to pay tribute to their fallen comrades. The scene is repeated in countless ceremonies in villages, towns and cities, where people of all ages put their differences aside for two minutes to remember our war dead. Without them, we would not be the free and fair democracy we are. Indeed, we may not even be debating in this Chamber this afternoon. For that alone, they deserve our eternal gratitude.
Remembrance Day, along with the anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day that we have seen this year, is a time when people are more aware of the presence of the armed forces in this country. However, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defence said, fewer and fewer people have any idea what it is like to serve in the armed forces, because fewer people know someone who is serving or has had military experience. That makes people less aware of our forces—their needs, their challenges—but every family, in its past, will have a connection with the forces in some way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) set out.
I remember the picture of the Royal Scots on my grandparents’ wall as I grew up. It was the regiment that my grandfather, a Welshman, served in during world war two. I was also pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned the merchant navy and its contribution. My father-in-law, Roy Ockenden, left a note for his mother at the age of 15 to say he was going to sea to join the merchant navy. I know he is missed every day.
Remembrance is also an opportunity for people to show their appreciation for the work of our forces. However, to truly pay tribute to our forces men and women and the sacrifices they have made and continue to make, we must demonstrate, in our words and our deeds, that we value them and their families. That includes our reserves, our cadets, their families and employers, as well as our veterans, their widows and their families. We must make a commitment today to do everything in our power to demonstrate that.
I would like to mention briefly the petition to enshrine the military covenant in law, which has gathered more than 67,000 signatures. The petition asks for a statutory requirement for the provision of services such as housing and mental health support for veterans. That shows an engagement with our armed forces and is a testament to how much our society values our service personnel.  In 2010, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, promised to enshrine the covenant in law. Unfortunately, that decision was reversed in 2011. I believe that was a real missed opportunity to protect the rights of our service personnel, and I hope it will be revisited, as I know the Minister cares deeply about our veterans.
Remembrance, like so many other things, has been different this year. As many Members have said, large remembrance services and the usual gatherings at war memorials up and down the country have either been cancelled or been subject to social distancing. Covid has not only affected the events that normally take place across the nation; there have been other visible and physical differences. The common sight of the Royal British Legion’s volunteers collecting donations for poppies at supermarkets and train stations and on high streets has been far less visible this year.
The poppy appeal is the largest fundraising campaign of the year for the Royal British Legion. Although it has adapted and raised more than a quarter of a million pounds through contactless donations, it has been difficult to fundraise during covid. This year, the Royal British Legion expects to see a fall in revenue. It will not be alone. It is estimated that one in 10 armed forces charities will be forced to close in the next 12 months. That comes at a time of increasing reliance on charitable aid. It is vital that we ensure that the forces charities are supported and that their loss of income is not felt by those who need their help.
We are remembering the past, but the armed forces can also be relied on to assist with modern issues. There is no better example than the covid test pilot in Liverpool. Some 2,000 troops have been sent to Liverpool to aid our civilian authorities there. Given the size of our armed forces, I echo calls for a promise from the Government that the covid deployment of our forces will not impact training, standing commitments or the forces’ capabilities to respond to threats. If our forces are strained more support must be given. I should be grateful if the Minister touched on what the Government are doing in his response. Covid has required the mobilisation of many of our reservists, as many hon. and right hon. Members have said. People have stepped in, in many different areas, proving how vital they are. They have helped, as we have heard, to transport PPE and to set up Nightingale hospitals. They have helped local authorities to set up and run Test and Trace centres. Three thousand reservists were called up in March, and the work that they do is vital. It is important that we remember them. We have many reasons to be proud of our reserve forces. I hope that the Minister can update the House on how many reservists have provided help during the pandemic and what is being done to help them move seamlessly from civilian life to service at such short notice.
Finally, I hope the Minister can touch on charity funding in his response. He recently called on the Treasury to find funding for visas for Commonwealth veterans, which we welcome. Would he put in a word with Treasury Ministers to increase funding for veterans and military charities? As we have heard today, there are concerns across the House about the drops in fundraising for these vital charities. We would all appreciate some information about how we will fill these gaps so that all those to whom we have paid tribute today can access the support that they need.
In debates of this nature there can be a tendency to focus on the problems that some veterans face, and it is right that we do so. However, we should never forget that, for most people, the forces experience is only positive. There are many veterans who make a huge contribution to their community in business and industry, and for that they should be celebrated by the entire House. This year, let us remember not only the armed forces personnel of the past but those of the present. Let us strive to support them so that they can continue to protect peace, our wellbeing and our society. Let us be there for them, as they have always been there for us.

Johnny Mercer: I thank the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), in what I believe is his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, for a heartfelt summing-up of an interesting debate. For someone who came to the House to try to reset the relationship between this country, her military and her veterans, it has been an incredibly encouraging couple of hours. It is a privilege to close this debate on remembrance, to mark Armistice Day. Listening to some of the remarkable stories of service from colleagues reminds me, however, that war, however great, huge in scale, distant and complex, is fundamentally personal.
We are very good in this country at remembering. There are few places on earth more moving than a war memorial on Remembrance Sunday, but this year has been very different. Many veterans who would normally attend were self-isolating. I pay tribute to their efforts. I pay particular tribute to the Royal British Legion. A narrative has developed among some in my cohort of veterans against the larger charities in recent years. I must say that we would be in an incredibly dark place without the supreme commitment of charities such as the Royal British Legion over many, many years to those who have served this country. I pay tribute to their efforts, particularly at this time of year.
I want to respond to a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Islwyn and by hon. Members who made speeches today. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the specific numbers of reservists, as I do not have that number to hand. Reserves are far more integrated into regular forces than ever before, but it is something that we can always do better. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will write to him about that. Charity funding is something that we have discussed a number of times. Charities clearly face a challenging time—there are no two ways about that—and the increase for services in charities is almost at the same rate. I am very clear that this nation has a duty to its service personnel and veterans. It is not a problem that should be farmed out to charities. This nation is doing more than it ever has done before on a statutory footing for those who serve, but I think the answer in the end is a blend between statutory and charity provision. That is more for another day.
If I may briefly talk about legislation that was raised by the hon. Member for Islwyn and a number of colleagues. I can confirm—there was a manifesto promise and I have campaigned for this for some years now—that unless the armed forces covenant means something to the people who need it and unless it is a tool in the  hands of those who need it in this country, it is not really worth what we would like it to be. The truth is that some great work has been done, but it is clear that we need to legislate in the manner in which the hon. Gentleman speaks to. I can confirm that the Government will be bringing forward an armed forces Bill next year to legislate and further enshrine into law the armed forces covenant.
I want to get through a few of the contributions today that I thought were particularly telling. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) made really valid points about mental health support. He is right about mental health support and how much more money has gone into it now, but until every single serviceman and servicewomen leaves the military and knows where they can turn for mental support, knows that care pathway and that point of access, we still have some work to do and we will not stop until we get there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) talked about the huge part played by military families. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) talked again about covenant legislation and the issue around foreign and Commonwealth visa fees. My views on that are well known, however unpopular they may be within Government. I have had a personal view for some time, which has not changed since I became a Minister. I am confident that the Government will do their duty towards our foreign and Commonwealth brothers and sisters who served with us abroad over many years.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) talked about how life is never the same. It really is
“At the going down of the sun and in the morning”
every day for our veterans’ families. That is why remembrance is so important.
I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) for her contribution on the female experience of the military. I reiterate that it is not where I want it to be, either in the military or in veteran circles. We have more work to do on that. I say to her that things are changing, but she has a very powerful and relevant voice and I urge her to keep going in her campaigning on that issue.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and his family history, and to the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who talked about his grandmother.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for her comments on Northern Ireland. I have repeatedly made it clear that my views and my commitment to this issue are completely unchanged from before I was a Minister. We heard today, and I will come on to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) in a moment, about how that conflict was painted very viscerally for individuals. There will be no resiling from the commitments that have been made. I have made that clear on a number of occasions. I am acutely aware that there comes a moment where that has to granulate into a reality for those who serve. We are fast approaching that moment. The Bill I brought forward last week had important commitments to that generation for the first time from a Government from this Dispatch Box, but there is more to do. The Prime Minister is crystal clear in his commitment on this issue and I am confident he will follow through.
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and I have been friends for far too long. [Interruption.] He has finally woken up. As conflict has changed, with cameras and so on, it is easy for people to come home and think, “My generation did x, y and z in Afghanistan” or wherever it may be, but I would just say to him that all we ever did was try to stand on the shoulders of our predecessors who fought in incredibly difficult environments and incredibly difficult and complex situations.
There was the story about the little girl. There is something about little girls and conflicts. I was out with a friend last weekend and we talked about what remembrance means. I said, “Does anything stick with you from those days?” and he remembered a little girl who similarly lost both arms and both legs and was dying. Her father would not give the little girl to us because he wanted her to be a martyr and would not let us save her life. There is something about little girls in conflict that gets very difficult.
What is remembrance to me? I will be honest: some parts of remembrance I do find pretty difficult. When I first came back from some of the roughest tours in Afghanistan, I simply could not watch, because the discrepancy between what people said in this place and how it actually felt to serve, or to be a veteran or family of a veteran in this country was too great. However, we are getting better.
The creation of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is a significant moment, but I say very gently to colleagues both inside and outside Government: do not underestimate what this means to people who are watching this debate. Do not underestimate the commitments we have made not only to the generation I was talking about from Northern Ireland, but to all those who have served. There is a community out there who are the best of us.   They care so much about this country that they actually signed up to serve. Some of their experiences have been wholly unacceptable. We are changing that, but we must redouble our efforts because, if we get it wrong now, having given them hope, that feeling that I used to have will only become worse.
Ultimately, all these things are political. Enshrining the armed forces covenant into law is a political choice. Reconciliation in Northern Ireland is a political choice. So you can remember properly, not through Remembrance Day itself and photographs and all the rest of it, but by supporting those efforts, by parking selfish ambition or any personal agenda with one special interest and by taking difficult decisions for the greater good. That greater good was what those patriots fought for and died to protect. That is how you remember and truly honour their sacrifice—for it is actions, not words, that matter. We will remember them.

Nigel Evans: We will remember them and we will continue to remember them and be grateful for their service and sacrifice. This has been an absolutely superb debate. Without their service and sacrifice, this debate and our democracy could easily have been extinguished.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered remembrance, UK armed forces and society.

Nigel Evans: We will now suspend for full three minutes. Please leave with care.
Sitting suspended.

Covid-19

Edward Argar: I beg to move,
That this House has considered covid-19.
Last Wednesday, this House came together to vote in favour of a new time-limited set of national restrictions across England—our strategy to suppress the virus, support the economy, education and our NHS until a vaccine can be deployed, and in doing so, to ensure that the NHS was not overwhelmed. It is clear that, in tackling this virus, there are no easy or simple choices for anyone. While Members may differ in the perspective they take on what is the right balance to strike, as we would expect in our open and vibrant democracy, it is important to say that it is clear that all Members of this House share a common objective, which is to beat this disease and see our country flourish once again. As Members will know, I entirely respect and recognise the sincerity and strength of feeling of all Members of this House on this most difficult issue, irrespective of the stance they take on it.
Difficult though they are, entailing further sacrifices, the steps that this Government and this House took last week were the right ones, because the alternative of not acting would have been far worse. Throughout this pandemic, we have always sought to base our decisions on evidence, data and scientific advice, but we must also recognise that this is a disease about which we have learnt more every day and about which we knew nothing a year or so ago. Throughout, we have always been willing, and we must remain willing, to reflect on and adapt to changing scientific evidence and scientific debate and to move with that debate.
The evidence we faced last week before the Prime Minister’s announcement was stark and changing rapidly: an R rate above 1 in every region and more than 100 cases per 100,000 of the population. The data indicated that the number of people in acute hospital beds in England was due to exceed NHS surge capacity in the forthcoming weeks and, in some hospitals, the number of patients was already higher than at the peak of the first wave. For me, one thing was abundantly clear: our NHS was at risk of seeing demand exceed capacity if nothing was done.
There was a sharp acceleration in infections in September and October, as was the case across Europe and, as we know, many of those infections lead to hospitalisation further down the line, with a roughly two-week lag.  As Sir Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, recently set out, at the start of September, there were around 500 people hospitalised with covid. By the start of October, there were around 2,000 people hospitalised with covid and, by the start of November, that figure had sharply increased to around 11,000.
We were already at the point where hospitals were becoming very busy, and that was before the normal winter and flu-related demand. It appears that, with the new treatments that are being developed, more people are likely to walk out of hospital after treatment than sadly was the case during the first wave, and I am thankful for that, as I am sure the entire House is, but the fact remains that those people still need hospital treatment. Each day the R rate remains above 1 is  another day that cases rise, with more hospital admissions, more patients deprived of other types of care and, tragically, more deaths.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is making a very important point about the impact on hospitals. Does he agree that the knock-on impact on elective surgeries and care and treatment in our hospitals means that unless we keep the coronavirus rate under control, we could see other people with non-covid illnesses being adversely impacted in this wave of the pandemic as they were in the first wave? Indeed, in my constituency, we saw a 26% increase in deaths from non-covid illnesses in the first nine months of this year.

Edward Argar: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In taking the action we are to protect the NHS, we are of course also seeking to suppress the number of people who need hospitalisations to maintain the availability of those hospital beds for other people in dire need, exactly as she alludes to. I have to say to those who question the impact of this disease or its seriousness when someone gets it that I am reminded—as I suspect other Members will be—of the extraordinary dignity and suffering of the Lewis family in the Rhondda, who were on “Channel 4 News” and various news outlets last week. Mr Lewis had lost his wife and his two sons in under a week to this disease. It was a truly dreadful story, and I have never seen a more dignified man than Mr Lewis when he was talking about it.
The latest R rate is between 1.1 and 1.3, so it was essential to take action to protect our NHS and to enable us, as my right hon. Friend said, to maintain vital services for those without covid that sadly had to be paused in the first wave. From the Dispatch Box, I would like to take the opportunity once again—every time we are here it is right we do it—to thank all our staff in the NHS and care sectors for the incredible work they have done and continue to do in the face of these unprecedented challenges.
As I have set out, the virus remains a serious threat. We recorded more than 20,000 positive cases yesterday. Average daily hospital admissions currently stand at 1,366 and, sadly, yesterday we recorded more than 500 deaths—the highest death toll since mid-May. It is a painful reminder that the real battles are not in fact fought here in this Chamber, but in our hospitals up and down the country and by those who are suffering from fighting this dreadful disease. But in this Chamber, there are steps we can take that I believe will help them in that battle, and I believe that we were therefore right to act as we did.
Despite the seriousness of our current situation, these measures are time-limited. They legally expire 28 days after they were passed by the House—on 2 December. At that point, we will look to return to the tiered system, using local and regional data and trends to determine our response and adapt to local needs.
The measures in place are also quite different from last time. Schools and universities rightly remain open to avoid further disruption to education. People can establish childcare bubbles, take unlimited exercise and meet one person from a different household outside. More than that, however difficult it has been, I believe that we as a nation have made huge strides to better  overcome the challenges that these measures bring. However, I am acutely aware that for many people in our country any restrictions are still incredibly difficult, especially this second time around. They are difficult for our NHS and care home staff, who have shown such resilience but still face a difficult winter ahead; for the families who have not been able to see their loved ones and once again cannot meet them in the ways they would wish to; and for individuals who live alone and are still, despite support bubbles, having to cope with the challenges posed by these restrictions.
It has also, of course, been an especially tough time for the businesses that have had to close their doors just as they were coming back, and that is why we are providing an unprecedented package of economic measures, with more than £200 billion of financial support since March to protect lives and livelihoods in every region and nation of the United Kingdom. The package was recently described by the International Monetary Fund as
“one of the best examples of co-ordinated action globally”.
Of course I feel deeply for those businesses and individuals, and I appreciate the position they find themselves in, especially when they have done all they can to do the right thing. That was why it was important to extend the furlough scheme and to provide further support in extending the scheme for the self-employed.

Bill Esterson: Of course it is right that the furlough scheme and the support for the self-employed should be reinstated at the levels they were in March, but the Minister will know—everyone will know—that there are a great many people in our country who did not qualify for the furlough scheme or the self-employed scheme or whose businesses did not qualify for grants at the start and still do not. May I take this opportunity to remind him that a great many people in this country are still without financial support and will find it increasingly difficult to make it through the coming weeks and months? Will he take that message back to his colleagues across the Government?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he makes his points, which is, as ever, measured and reasonable. As I have said, I entirely understand—as anyone in this House will, from looking at their own casework and their constituents’ letters—the situations that some people still find themselves in, despite the unprecedented package of support that has been put in place. I know that he would not expect me to speak for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I know that my right hon. Friend will have heard the point that he has made. Indeed, other Members of this House have made it on other occasions on behalf of their constituents.
This tough emotional and economic toll is why we are determined to make every day count in our battle against the virus. Our NHS has been preparing for this second wave for months, and as we move into winter, it is better prepared than before, with 30,000 ventilators and billions of items of PPE, mostly made here at home. In that context, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who has done so much, as the Minister with responsibility for this area, to ensure that we have the PPE that we need at this time.  There are also over 13,000 more nurses and almost 8,000 more doctors, and £450 million is being spent as we speak to further upgrade accident and emergency departments. There is increased capacity in our hospitals, and the Nightingales are standing ready as an insurance policy.
What is more, we know more about the virus than before. We know how we can better stop it and how we can better treat it. We have therefore strengthened infection control procedures and, as a result, we are driving down hospital-acquired infections. We have also improved clinical techniques, and I pay tribute to the clinicians and scientists who have driven these developments. As a result, the number of people surviving covid in hospital is up, as I said earlier. But of course, an increase in survival rates means that the pressure on NHS beds remains high. Equally concerning to the House will be the toll this disease takes not just on immediate physical health but on mental health. Our medical community is also working hard to understand the impact of so-called long covid and the potential for long-term chronic conditions resulting from the illness, even when people may have felt they were unaffected when they had it.
In social care, too, we have rightly taken important steps to protect people in care and those who care for them. Our social care winter plan, led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Care, strengthens protections in social care, including on the provision of PPE, regular testing and updated systems for safe discharge. Those will be crucial in the months to come. She recently set out the latest guidance for care home visits, which sought to strike the incredibly difficult balance on providing vital protections for the health and wellbeing of our most vulnerable people, while protecting the people who work there and seeking to allow those vital family visits.
We have also built the largest testing capacity of any country in Europe. From an almost standing start in the spring, we have conducted some 34 million tests so far, and yesterday our polymerase chain reaction testing capacity stood at 504,491. More than 10 million people in the UK have been tested at least once through NHS Test and Trace, and our NHS covid-19 contact tracing app is approaching 20 million downloads. In Stoke-on-Trent and Liverpool, we are piloting cutting-edge lateral flow tests, which can deliver a result on infection in just 15 minutes. Starting yesterday, we are rolling out twice-weekly testing for all NHS staff, using a range of testing technologies so that we can better seek to keep both staff and patients safe. On Monday, the Secretary of State wrote to 67 directors of public health who had an expressed an interest to him to make 10,000 tests immediately available to other areas across the country and to make lateral flow tests available for local officials and devolved Administrations according to local needs, at a rate of 10% of their population per week.
Those bold new steps are a key weapon in our battle against the virus, but of course I know that the hopes of the nation are, understandably, pinned on the possibility of a safe and effective vaccine. That felt another step closer on Monday, as we all welcomed the announcement from Pfizer and BioNTech of a vaccine that they state is more than 90% effective. As an early mover, the UK has already secured 40 million doses of that vaccine. It is important to note that it is just one of many vaccines in development, and we have placed orders for 300 million  further doses from five other vaccine candidates that are yet to report phase 3 results. I always seek to sound a note of caution at this Dispatch Box and in the media, and it is important that I echo the words of caution from the Secretary of State yesterday: the full safety data for the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine is not yet available, and our regulator the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Secretary of State will not approve any vaccine until it is proven to be clinically safe. This is a promising step forward, but we must remain cautious. So until we can roll out a proven vaccine, we must continue to follow the existing rules of “hands, face, space” because this remains a deadly virus.
In closing, let me say that in recent months this country has faced some tough and challenging times. We continue to face tough and challenging times, and many up and down our country have made huge sacrifices and continue to do so, be they individuals, families or businesses. I pay tribute to them all. There are no easy solutions, but we have risen to and beaten such challenges in the past, although different ones, and we can do so again, through a unity of spirit, by coming together as a country and by our shared determination to do the right thing. The recent announcement of a potential vaccine offers hope for the future, and while we pursue that prospect at speed, our greatest strength lies in the common sense, determination and resilience of the people of our great country. I am convinced that, with that and together, we will beat this dreadful disease.

Nigel Evans: Before I call Justin Madders, and to help Members plan a little better, let me say that the time limit will come in after Sir Desmond Swayne, who sits fifth on the call list. So Members who are between five and 10 on the list will have five minutes, and those after 10 will have four minutes. The time limit may be reduced later on, depending on what Dame Rosie Winterton wishes to do.

Justin Madders: It is now 293 days since the Secretary of State first came to this House and spoke about the emerging threat of covid-19. Since then, thousands of lives have been lost, both directly and indirectly, and billions of pounds have been spent. There has been great personal sacrifice, and we have all heard so many stories of individual courage and dedication that have been an inspiration, but there is no doubt that people are now weary. Not one corner of this isle or one aspect of our lives has been immune to the impact of this virus, so the news this week that there may be a way out of this nightmare has given people hope, and we all need hope at this difficult time.
However, that hope should not obscure the truth that we are in the midst of a second wave, so we must be sure to maintain vigilance. As we heard from the Minister, as of yesterday there were 20,000 new infections; more than 13,000 people are in hospital in England, with more patients in hospital in the north of England than there were at the peak of the first wave; and sadly, there were another 532 deaths yesterday, the highest number in one day for approximately six months. That is another 532 families who have lost a loved one, and among the huge numbers we talk about, we should never lose sight of the fact that each one of those numbers is a person.  With the news today that we have now passed 50,000 deaths since the start of the pandemic, we know that the scale of human loss has been immense.
Those figures remind us that we still have a long way to go. Hope for the future is important, but it is not guaranteed, and neither is the end likely to be reached before we enter the difficult winter months, during which it is sadly likely that more people will catch the virus and more will die. It is right that plans are now being made for the roll-out of the vaccine, but that should not mean we take our eye off the ball when it comes to the immediate and pressing challenges that this virus presents. I know that time is at a premium today, so I will not detain the House for too long, but I want to say a few words about some of those immediate challenges.
Every challenge in the NHS is faced, first and foremost, by its workforce, so I will start by paying tribute—as the Minister did—to everyone in the NHS: the doctors, the nurses, the many allied health professionals, the porters, and everyone who has gone above and beyond over these past nine months to keep the NHS going. We know that working in the NHS is never easy, but the pressure, the workload and the trauma this year are of a scale and intensity we have never seen before. Not only must we show our gratitude to those who have given their all, we must demonstrate that we are listening to them by addressing their well-documented and legitimate concerns. That has to be more than a clap or a badge: there has to be tangible recognition that there are only so many times people can go to the well before they become physically and mentally exhausted. It is clear that burn-out is a real risk, as 14 health unions and royal colleges have warned in their letter to the Prime Minister earlier this week. They say that asking staff to carry on at this level of intensity is “increasingly unrealistic”. We have to listen to that warning.
Addressing workforce fatigue is not just the right thing to do: it is the only thing to do if we want the NHS to continue to be the jewel in this nation’s crown. I hope that the rumours of another two-year pay freeze for NHS staff are just that—rumours—because if that were true, it would send the most appalling message about the value this Government place on the NHS workforce. When the Minister winds up the debate, I will be delighted if she could put that particular rumour to bed.
Of course, NHS staff should be properly rewarded for the work they do, but they also need to be properly supported when doing the job. We cannot have a repeat of the obscenity of doctors and nurses bringing in home-made PPE while UK manufacturers are selling it overseas. I know that general practice is particularly concerned about the availability of PPE this coming winter, and while many of these debates have rightly focused on the hospital-based issues that covid presents, we should not underestimate the demand there has been on GPs this year. We know it is always the case that, when general practice struggles, the impact is felt elsewhere in the NHS. It is not yet clear what role GPs will play in the roll-out of any vaccine, but any additional demands placed on them in that respect must be matched by additional support.
We welcome the news that at last, many months after we first suggested it, there will be routine testing of frontline NHS staff. The Healthcare Safety Investigation  Branch report on the transmission of covid in hospital settings, which came out last month, stressed the importance of increasing pillar 1 testing capacity, and it is a matter of deep regret that we are only just starting to see that now. Let us hope that that pledge does not face the same problems with availability that we had in the social care sector.

Carla Lockhart: I had hoped to speak in this debate but, unfortunately, there are limited flights to Belfast. Does the hon. Member agree that there needs to be additional testing in the care home sector, particularly for family members who could be designated as care workers? I know that the Minister brought forward a pilot scheme. Does the shadow Minister agree that that should be rolled out right across the United Kingdom and that loved ones should get access to their family members in the care home setting?

Justin Madders: I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. The recent developments in rapid testing give us the ideal opportunity to allow relatives of those in care homes to get in and see them and give them the support that they have been so sadly lacking in recent months. None of us could fail to be moved by the many representations we have had from family members who have been unable to see their loved ones for many months.
On the health and social care workforce, we know, sadly, that over 600 staff have lost their lives so far to covid-19. They have paid the ultimate price just for doing their job. It is important that lessons are learnt about how we stop transmission, and it is right that the Government opened up their life assurance scheme to all health and social care staff, but over half of all families who have lost someone to the virus have still not received their payment, so we need the Government to be much more proactive in making sure that everyone who is entitled to that payment receives it.
Let us support the staff, but let us not forget the impact on patients as well. We know that the NHS could cope with the first wave only because so many planned operations were cancelled. We know that the need to operate in a covid-secure environment presents additional challenges to the NHS in reaching previous levels of activity. We know that before the pandemic started, waiting lists were already climbing to record levels. Covid-19 has accelerated that increase so that by August this year, over 100,000 patients were waiting over a year just to start treatment. Cancer Research UK estimates that around 3 million people are waiting for breast, bowel or cervical screening, and there were over 1.2 million patients waiting for a key diagnostic test at the end of August. We need to hear what the plans will be to address these spiralling waiting lists, and we need a cast-iron guarantee that no patient will be discharged from hospital into a care home if they have tested positive for covid-19.
I turn to what awaits us in a few weeks’ time, because we all hope that the current lockdown will end on 2 December as planned, and as promised, I believe, by the Prime Minister. If it does end on that date, it seems likely that we will still have some system of tiered restrictions moving forward. That is another area where we need to see improvements, because the Government’s approach to restrictions to date has at times been contradictory, muddled and rushed. I accept that the  Government have had on occasions to move quickly, sometimes because of a rapidly changing picture—but sometimes, regrettably, because of leaks to the press too. Of course, we would not expect things in this kind of situation to be perfect, but they can be better than they have been.
The time that this lockdown buys us should be used not just to fix test and trace, to prepare for a roll-out of the vaccine and to fine-tune the mass testing pilots, but to set out a clear and consistent framework for determining and implementing future restrictions. The Minister and his colleagues have spent many Monday afternoons in Committee Rooms with me and others going through increasingly convoluted and amended statutory instruments dealing with each new restriction, often published only hours before they became law and always debated weeks after they came into force. We cannot go back to that style of governing. Public trust is eroded when decisions are not made in a transparent and timely manner, so when the Government decide what their exit strategy to the lockdown will be, they also need to consider what the process will be for making and communicating those decisions. It is critical that individuals and businesses get sufficient advance warning in future to enable them to prepare properly for whatever comes next. This point is as much about process as it is about substance, but the process matters, because restrictions need to be tested in this place; if they do not stand up to scrutiny here, we cannot expect them to stand up to scrutiny out there.
I want to say a few words about test, trace and isolate. The Serco side of the system is underperforming badly, and the decision to place responsibility for mass testing into the hands of local directors of public health is a welcome one. It recognises, perhaps belatedly, where the real expertise lies. The latest figures for the national test and trace system are frankly shocking, with 26% of test results received within 24 hours. We should not forget that the Prime Minister said we would have all results turned around in that timescale by the end of June, yet the figures have been getting worse in recent weeks, not better. We know how important it is for results to be turned around quickly if we are ever to get test and trace playing the part it was meant to play in controlling the spread of the virus. Ministers can boast about record capacity, but capacity is meaningless if the results are not coming back quickly enough to be effective.
Let me turn to the contact tracing system itself. In the most recent weeks for which figures are available, 40% of close contacts were not reached and asked to self-isolate, amounting to more than 130,000 people in one week. That is a failure. When every one of us in here has those difficult and distressing conversations with our constituents about the restrictions that we currently face, we need to reflect on that failure and question not only why these unproven private providers have been given the task in the first place, but why they continue to be responsible for a system that they are clearly not delivering on. Every scientific adviser said that relaxing lockdown measures would work only if we had an effective test and trace system in place, yet on just about every measure the system is going backwards. How much longer will Ministers tolerate this failure? However, whoever is doing the contact tracing, that is only half the story. Without people adhering to the rules of self-isolation thereafter, the success of the entire system is in doubt.
Yesterday Baroness Harding gave evidence to the joint inquiry of the Science and Technology Committee, and Health and Social Care Committee, where she made the important point that the reason that people were not self-isolating was that they could not afford the loss of income, not because of a refusal to comply. She also made the rather remarkable claim that the surge in cases that we have seen in the last couple of months was not anticipated, which I thought was an incredible admission.
The Committees also heard from Professor Sir John Bell, who said that the self-isolation system was “massively ineffective” and spoke about using the increased testing capacity perhaps to cut short the self-isolation period for negative cases. No doubt the Government are actively considering that, but we are still left with the need to do more to encourage people who test positive to self-isolate.
In September a report for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies concluded that self-isolation rates would be improved if additional financial support were available, ensuring that those required to self-isolate—let us not forget that these are people who are doing the right thing—are not penalised and do not experience financial hardship when doing so. This survey found that only 18% of people with symptoms self-isolated, and that figure went down to just 11% of those told to self-isolate by Test and Trace after coming into contact with a confirmed case. I know that these are preliminary figures and that other studies have suggested slightly higher levels of compliance, but no study that I have seen has shown levels anywhere near close enough to where they need to be for us to have an effective system.
The entitlement to a self-isolation payment is tied to being in receipt of certain benefits, which means that a significant number of people do not qualify, although those not in receipt of those benefits and those who do not receive contractual sick pay can also receive statutory sick pay or employment and support allowance. But that is frankly not good enough. SSP is far below the rate set for a self-isolation payment. The Secretary of State famously said that he could not live on such an amount, so we should not be surprised when we see low rates of compliance, because asking those who are not eligible for a self-isolation payment to accept a significant drop in their pay for a fortnight inevitably causes hardship and discourages compliance. I urge the Government seriously to consider doing more to encourage people to self-isolate.
It is a massive oversight that those notified through the app are not entitled to the payment. I understand that the Government are actively looking at this, but given that it is over six months since we started hearing talk about the world-beating app, it is staggering that we are only now looking at how properly to tie it in with support for self-isolation. Action on that issue cannot come soon enough.
There has been newspaper speculation that the actual period of self-isolation might be cut, with a suggestion that it could end at 10 days following a negative test. A report in The Guardian on Monday says that a compromise was “cooked up” to placate Dominic Cummings. Frankly, he ought to be the last person in government to be determining the self-isolation rules, given that he has found it impossible to follow them himself. Any change to this period should be based on medical advice, so I  do hope that we get clarity from the Government during the wind-ups that any decisions on shortening the self-isolation period will be based on advice from the chief medical officer, rather than any Dom, Dick or Harry who happens to be in the Prime Minister’s office.
I hope that those on the Government Benches have been listening today and considered the issues and the suggestions that I have made, as none of us wants to be back here in another month or two debating another lockdown because the time this lockdown has bought was wasted. We do not want to be here talking about how the second wave saw us with one of the highest death rates in the world again, and we do not want to be here in a few months’ time seeing cases rising again because demand was not anticipated. We all want to hear that cases are falling, that hospital admissions are reducing, and that other NHS patients are getting their treatments quicker. Human endeavour has given us the opportunity to get to that place. While reaching that destination is not entirely within the Government’s gift, it would be inexcusable if we failed to get there because of incompetence or neglect on the Government’s part. The people would never forgive that, and nor should they.

Liam Fox: I pay tribute to all those in my own constituency who have helped our community through the pandemic—the medical and emergency staff, other key workers, our volunteers, and the neighbours who have made all the difference.
I want to say a few words about how we can ensure that public confidence in our policy remains high, but first I will make a few comments on the current lockdown. I reinforce my hon. Friend the Minister’s point that when we leave the national lockdown on 2 December, we are not going into a national free-for-all in the run-up to Christmas. Ministers must make it very clear that we are transitioning back to a regional tiered system, because over-optimism, just as if people believe that a vaccine coming means they do not have to obey the rules, would be very dangerous for public health.
But if we are going to move successfully back to the tiered system, we have to deal with some of the illogical rules that still exist despite the best efforts of Ministers. This is not frivolous—it is important in getting people to conform to the restrictions that are in place. For example, we want people to play sport, so do we really believe that a spaced round of golf is more dangerous to public health than people attending a supermarket? When it comes to religious observation, is it credible that people who go to church for private worship who are properly spaced are a greater danger than the same number with the same spacing who take part in a service? These issues are important to a lot of people out there. The Government need to deal with some of these illogicalities if we are to deal with conformity.
There is something that Ministers can do immediately, and that is about free testing for families of key workers. I have a constituent who is a key worker who has been sent home because her son has also been sent home from school to isolate. She cannot go back to work until her son has a negative test, but he does not qualify for free testing. In other words, she must pay to get her son tested before she can go back to a key occupation. That cannot be the right way to treat our key workers. I urge the Minister to look as quickly as possible at how we deal with these key members of our society.
May I ask the Minister to look again, through the Treasury, at those who were remunerated through dividends? Many of those people are hard-working and decent, not tax dodgers. They were able to get by for a short period of time, but as the lockdown goes on, it is becoming impossible for them and they are facing absolute undue hardship. I urge the Government to look again at them.
My main comments relate to our great maxim in medicine—do no harm. That means that the patient must not be worse off from the cure than they were from the original disease. This is a dilemma facing all Governments. How do we protect public health while ensuring the economic viability by which the funding for public services is generated? So far, the public remain very supportive of the Government’s position, but that cannot be guaranteed. Recent controversies over the use of data have made it more difficult for the Government simply to say that they are following the science. Sadly, there is growing resistance to the concept of lockdowns, which is inevitable as economic concerns rise to the fore. It is utterly irrational to say that one is against all lockdowns, because that needs to be a decision taken on the basis of the evidence at the time. However, we need to understand the anxieties and the frustrations if the Government want to keep their options open and retain credibility with the public.
So how can Parliament play its part in that process? Covid-19 is not just a health issue; it is also an economic issue, affecting welfare and employment and our personal and social wellbeing. And of course there is no such thing, actually, as “the science”; rather, there is a range of scientific views, and we need to understand what that range is and the weight given to the respective parts of it if we are to have faith in the outcome of the judgments that have been made.
Our current Select Committees are very good at looking at departmental functions and policy, but they are very vertical and do not look across the whole of Government. In 2012, after the banking scandal, David Cameron set up the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards; it was a full parliamentary Committee of inquiry involving both Houses. I believe we need the same now: senior but temporary, cross-party and with both Houses. Of course, the reaction from the Front Bench is likely to be, “No more scrutiny”—I have been there and done that; I have been on the Front Bench and know what all those arguments are—but I think  it would be a mistake and something the Government would come to regret, because such a Commission would help show that across the whole of Government, advice and data had been properly scrutinised. It is an opportunity to reinforce public confidence as we face the covid pandemic into 2021.
Finally, there is another reason why we should have such a set-up. This will not be the last pandemic we face. In the era of globalisation, when in normal times, for example, we have 700,000 people in the air at any one time, we will face further pandemics, and although this has been a tragedy for every single case, it has not been a particularly lethal pandemic by historical standards. We must set up the structures that we will need to deal with future pandemics, and we need internationally to work out the protocols we will put in place when we have the emergence of new viruses and the metrics we will use to measure that, because we cannot have the disorganised and shambolic international response that we have had  to this particular pandemic. Meanwhile, at home we need transparency, with all the evidence scrutinised, if we are to maintain public confidence and see off the political opportunists and the conspiracy theorists, and, with that transparency, we need that scrutiny in this House and we need it urgently.

Neale Hanvey: Despite its dreadful impact, the coronavirus pandemic has brought out the very best in people, from Captain Sir Tom Moore’s inspiring fundraising efforts to volunteers in communities across my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency who have mobilised to ensure that the vulnerable among them receive food and medicine as they shield from this deadly virus. I would like to pay tribute to some of them today: Fife Voluntary Action, Benarty emergency response team and the many “Scotland Loves Local” high street heroes award winners to name but a few. But of course I would also add my thanks to all the key workers who kept us all going throughout lockdown.
The pandemic has also, however, laid bare the opportunism of some: a profiteering cronyism that runs through the heart of this Westminster Government—what Canadian author and social activist Naomi Klein calls “disaster capitalism”. In her award-winning book “The Shock Doctrine”, Klein presents a convincing narrative of a political strategy that exploits large-scale crises, such as this pandemic, to push through neo-liberal policy that systematically deepens inequality while simultaneously enriching the already wealthy with connections to those in power.
In the crisis we face today, ordinary people are focused on the daily challenge of survival, yet in parallel we have repeatedly witnessed new private companies springing up to profit directly, greatly assisted in those efforts by a political class prepared to make strenuous efforts to line the pockets of many with close links to the party of government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) incisively said of this phenomenon, people across these islands are in the grip of a cronyvirus at the heart of this Government that may be every bit as deadly as the coronavirus

Laura Trott: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the private sector has played a role in helping tackle the virus, and specifically that Pfizer, as a private company, has only got the money to invest because of its profit and share nature?

Neale Hanvey: I do not dispute the role of private companies in meeting the challenge of the coronavirus. I will go on to discuss the transparency and the appropriateness of how contracts have been awarded by this Government during the pandemic.
We only have to look at the PPE fiasco to see how this has been brazenly put into action, with large contracts awarded to small firms with little to no experience in the relevant field but with numerous links to the Conservative party. How on earth did the Government find them? In what amounts to a covid bonanza for these tiny companies, Government contracts worth more than £10 billion have been awarded in this way since March. Under the cover of the pandemic, the standard rules have been put aside, enabling contracts to be issued in extreme urgency  with little to no oversight; I refer to the comments made by the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) about scrutiny.
With the emergence of promising vaccine candidates, we collectively hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel. However, the darkness of our journey through this pandemic must not be allowed to obscure our important public duty to act in good faith and with financial probity. We simply cannot emerge from this experience with the dismissive “at any cost” excuse deployed from the top of this Government down. We must ensure that the burden is shared equally together.
Enormous amounts of public money have been dished out in the absence of any tendering process, value for money assessment or assessment of whether any of these companies have relevant experience. We have all heard stories of UK businesses with expertise whose offers of help went unanswered by this Government. Why? On PPE, £108 million went to a tiny pest control company with net assets of £18,000. Another £108 million went to a modestly sized confectioner in Northern Ireland, while a third contract worth £252 million was awarded to an opaque private fund owned through a tax haven. The more that Members and external interested parties scratch the surface of this Government’s contract profligacy, the more serious are the questions that arise.
It is not just PPE. Under the fast-track rules, private firms have been handed a total of 843 direct contracts, including those that administer covid-19 tests and provide food parcels and medical supplies. Then, of course, there is the disastrous £12 billion test and trace failure, led by Conservative peer Baroness Harding. In yesterday’s joint Select Committee hearing, a possible reason for that was revealed. In July, the CMO claimed in a Select Committee that the ability to ramp up testing was “significantly strained”. Yesterday, Professor Sir Chris Ham gave evidence that increasing capacity over the crucial summer months was too slow, yet Baroness Harding claimed that testing capacity was increasing throughout the summer. What is the truth of the matter? Unfortunately, that was not the only incongruity, as Baroness Harding did not show a clear command of her brief, failing to answer or, in some cases, understand what was being asked.
The global pandemic is an absolute disaster for so many, with an unimaginable loss of life, yet the brightest and best of humanity have been working tirelessly on effective treatments and a vaccine. Rightly or wrongly, the appointment of Kate Bingham has proven controversial. There are no doubt questions to be asked about the absence of any clear recruitment process, but when she appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee recently, she was impressive. She was clearly on top of and in command of her brief.
However, that does not vacate the responsibility of this Government and any appointees to act ethically and in good faith and, most importantly, to account transparently for their actions. There are concerns about Kate Bingham’s astronomical public relations bill and claims that she shared sensitive information with investors. Further concerns emerged in The Guardian yesterday—in simple terms, how can a job be considered unpaid when the postholder has a position of influence or control in   the process of awarding a £49 million investment in a company in which they remain a managing partner and from which they will surely benefit? Whatever the Prime Minister’s bluster, these matters must be fully scrutinised.
Sad as the pandemic is, what saddens the most is that these conditions are seen by some as an opportunity for Governments and corporate interests to implement political agendas that would otherwise be met with great resistance and opposition. The Government are on notice that, despite the disorientation of the public health crisis we are living through, these matters are being pursued.
This chain of events is not unique to the current crisis; it is a blueprint that neo-liberal politicians and Governments have been following for decades. Many thought that the meltdown of the global financial system in 2008 would prompt a comprehensive rethink of the principles underlying global capitalism, but in reality it was exploited to implement austerity and defund public services and social welfare provision on a grand scale. Covid illustrated that no more keenly than in respect of social care.
The 2018 report on social care from the other place pointed to a gap in service for 1.4 million people. This year, the Independent Care Group suggested that 1.5 million people are already living without the care that they need. The number keeps growing. One and a half million vulnerable and elderly people throughout England—husbands, wives, parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters; each and every one deserves much better from their Government. The Government are presiding over a social care system that is close to collapse.
Sir Simon Stevens, chief executive of the national health service, told the BBC that the covid-19 crisis had shone “a very harsh spotlight” on the “resilience” of the care system. The truth is that it comes down to priorities and political choices. To reform social care to pre-austerity levels will now cost more than £14 billion. That is a large sum, but it is £9 billion less than the bank bail-outs of 2007-08, which cost the public purse £23 billion overall. The annual operating costs of Trident nuclear weapons come in at £2 billion—far short of the £14 billion we need to repair the economic vandalism of austerity but, according to the costs worked out by Skills for Care, enough to recruit and train almost 550,000 new social careworkers every single year.
According to Age UK, 167,000 older people and their families throughout England now have to fund their own care because of the means test for free or subsidised support. Older people who are obliged to buy their own care have spent more than £7 billion in the 12 months since the Prime Minister took office and promised to fix social care. Every single day in England, 14 people exhaust their assets paying for care.
The reality is that the social care system that entered the pandemic was underfunded, understaffed, undervalued and at risk of collapse. Any response to covid-19, however fast or comprehensive, would have needed to contend with this legacy of political neglect. Government policies to support social care have faced major and widespread problems, not least the PPE crisis, which has led to a lack of protection for some people using and providing adult social care. Local authorities report that additional Government funding has been insufficient to cover the additional costs.
As has become all too clear throughout the recent crisis in England, protecting social care has been given far too low a priority. When the Minister for Care appeared before front of the Health and Social Care Committee last month, despite admitting that
“the social care system needs fixing”
and making a commitment to do so, she was unwilling to give any date for when the disinvestment of austerity would be rectified. If not now, when?
The UK Government do not even need to look far for inspiration: although challenges remain, they could learn much from Scotland’s approach. The story north and south of the border is very different, as is evident in our approaches to social care post covid. The Scottish Government have established an independent review to look at the creation of a national care service for all. As the Nuffield Trust points out, Scotland’s reforms are
“the most advanced of the countries…having set out an ambitious and comprehensive vision for a social care service.”
Because free personal care has been in place in Scotland since 2002, two thirds of those receiving social care support in Scotland do so in their own homes.
A further lesson from Scotland is the introduction of Frank’s law in April 2019. Under this legislation, free personal care was extended to all adults. Despite all these significant advances being made in Scotland, the system continues to struggle because we are part of the UK. Let us take funding, for example. The simple truth is that, without independence, we are limited in our funding options. Hoping for Barnett consequentials anytime soon seems unlikely, given the UK Government’s timidity towards social care reform in England. Then there is Brexit. While the Government celebrate the end of freedom of movement, the loss of its opportunities is lamented in Scotland. The Migration Advisory Committee is entirely right that this poses a stark risk for social care, given that the services are dependent on EU nationals. UK policy delivers to Scotland a triple threat: a lack of reform to tackle the many pre-existing issues; the Government’s irrational and ideological approach to the EU; and an immigration policy that refuses to acknowledge, never mind accommodate, the specific needs of Scotland.
I had a fleeting hope in March that covid would raise this Government’s eyes to injustice and the value of those in healthcare. I felt sure that honouring all the heroes in our NHS and care sector would naturally follow, but no. With the weekly clapping now a distant memory, many do not feel valued or do not feel that their efforts are properly recognised. Campaigners are calling on Ministers to boost nurses’ pay without delay. The Scottish Government are currently delivering the highest pay award in the UK for NHS Agenda for Change staff of at least 9% over the three years from 2019. They also gave an immediate 3.3% pay rise to social care workers and have just announced £50 million for the social care staff support fund for those who contract covid-19.
This Government sprang into action to approve countless contracts for their wealthy friends at the start of the pandemic, but that sense of urgency is sadly lacking when it comes to taking action on nurses’ pay or addressing the poverty of carers. The Prime Minister demonstrated yet again today that his ears are made of cloth. He ignores repeated calls for the £20 uplift to universal  credit to be made permanent and extended to legacy benefits, which is backed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Save the Children, and he defended his Government’s refusal to feed children in poverty during the summer holidays, yet brags about Marcus Rashford’s campaign this winter. It was support grudgingly given through shame.
We are seeing a return to the lack of compassion of the 1980s, but what we are witnessing now casts minds back further still, not just to the Thatcher years but to Dickensian Britain where great wealth and extreme poverty existed cheek by jowl, conjuring images of barefoot children with empty bowls and a population without access to medical or social care. This is the stark reality of Tory Britain: poverty, a pay-to-access suboptimal social care system, an assault on employment and working conditions, and the exclusion of the self-employed. Coronavirus must not be allowed to cover for the crony virus at the heart of this Government. Some say that Scotland gets too generous a settlement, but that is a false narrative. These policies exist in Scotland because—

Richard Graham: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This debate is about covid-19, the pandemic in our constituencies right now, but the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) is taking us back into the 1980s. Is that as it should be?

Nigel Evans: I am not responsible for the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but I know that he will be conscious of the number of people who wish to contribute to this debate. I know him to be a fair man and we are coming now to exactly the same timings of the other Front-Bench contributions, so if he could come to a conclusion, that would be really useful.

Neale Hanvey: It may not be the perception of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) that this is important to covid, but it is in Scotland and I am speaking to the people in Scotland.
The policies that exist to support us exist in  Scotland because people vote for parties that campaign for these political choices. Prior to the 2014 referendum, Business for Scotland analysis revealed that, in each  of the 30 previous years, Scotland generated more tax revenue per head for the UK Treasury than the rest of the UK. The subsidy myth was well and truly busted. The Prime Minister or Conservative Members talk of the generous handout from this Government, but it is not a handout; it is our money. It is our money that  they are giving back to us. Scotland’s economy, when benchmarked against similar-sized independent nations that, quite frankly, would love to have Scotland’s economic advantages and natural resources, illustrates vividly the dreadful impact of Westminster’s continued economic mismanagement.
In closing—[Hon. Members: “Hurrah!”] Conservative Members might not like it. Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris recently referenced the following quote:
“Democracy is not a state. It is an act”.
To those aspiring for statehood in Scotland, I say this: it is time for democracy and it is time to act like a state.

Nigel Evans: There is now a five-minute limit.

Desmond Swayne: We have made the case against the regulations in this House and we have lost all the votes, and that is democracy. However, liberal western democracy is more than rule by the majority. It certainly includes freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom to worship. One of the most worrying aspects of our response to the coronavirus has been the way people have simply shrugged as these freedoms have been dispensed with. The Government have armed themselves with all the coercive powers of the state to tell us whom we may meet, when we may meet them, where we may meet them and what we must wear. Freedom of protest has been dispensed with, as has freedom of worship.
Is it not interesting the way that subsidiaries of the totalitarian state, in their eagerness, seek to exceed even what has been proscribed and prescribed? I have received representations from clinicians who have been threatened that their jobs will be taken from them because they have publicly expressed their doubts about the wisdom of the policy or, indeed, their doubts about the misuse or the concealment of data. We had the extraordinary scene of a nurse being charged with assault for seeking to liberate her mother from a care home. Could this have happened in our country? Then we saw those students seeking to effect a great escape from the Stalag Luft III that their university had imposed on them.
As these enormities occurred, instead of the expected rising chorus of protest, on the contrary we are told by the pollsters that actually the British people thirst for even greater restraints on their liberty. I am appalled—absolutely appalled. These liberties, as we heard in the debate earlier this afternoon, were bought at an extraordinarily high price. Now, as we move into the vaccinated sunny uplands of release and freedom, there is a danger that the state has learned a powerful lesson over the last few months—namely, that the British people do not worry too much about their liberties and that they can be dispensed with conveniently when need arises. I hope that this House will wake up to that danger and seek a remedy.

Bill Esterson: In April, the Government asked businesses across our country to step up to help in the pandemic. I want to tell a story of two businesses that tried to help in that pandemic. It is a contrast between two PPE companies: Florence Roby, owned by constituents of mine in Formby; and PPE Medro, which was founded on 12 May this year. Seven weeks later, this company was given a contract for £122 million to provide medical robes. The contract was not advertised anywhere else, and presumably it was delivered, but we have no way of knowing because we have not had the outcomes yet.
How was Florence Roby doing by 12 May, having first approached the Government in March, before the big call for help came? It has been going for more than 50 years, and it is a specialist in the manufacture of uniforms. Working with local NHS providers, it designed medical robes that could be reused up to 100 times. It took two months for Florence Roby to get an answer, which took it past the 12 May date. Meanwhile, it developed the product and applied for the CE marks. In June, it was told that its product was not required. The  Government’s email said that they had all the PPE they could possibly ever need. Florence Roby and dozens of other companies across the country were told the same thing: their services were no longer required.
Florence Roby had put weeks of effort and thousands of pounds of investment into developing a product, which, remember, was 100 times reusable; meanwhile, we were getting planeloads of plastic medical robes from Turkey that could not be used because the quality was not good enough. That is the reality of what my constituents faced. They still have not had a contract or a satisfactory answer from the Government. They were just given the runaround.
PPE Medpro is not the only company to have profited, having been started from scratch or having had very little footprint and no previous experience. We saw that, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) mentioned, with PestFix and its £108 million contract. PPE Medpro had one advantage: it was assisted by its relationship with a Conservative Member of the House of Lords. Randox, similarly connected to Members of the ruling party, got a £347 million contract for covid tests that could not be used because of safety concerns. Ayanda Capital, which supplied unusable facemasks, is based in Mauritius, and we heard at Prime Minister’s questions from the Leader of the Opposition about £130 million for external PR. All the while, a £7,000 day rate is being paid to consultants more widely. Florence Roby employs local people and a contract would have added jobs in its factory; instead, it had to lay people off, while PPE Medpro shipped from overseas. That is the contrast.
Let us remember that we were told all the way through that there are unique circumstances about procurement during a crisis, and I do not deny that. On 11 April, there was a call to arms from the Health Secretary to any UK textile company that could assist. On 15 April, the Government’s website was calling for PPE manufacturers and home-grown industries. On 4 May, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke of support for
“companies capable of contributing supplies.”—[Official Report, 4 May 2020; Vol. 675, c. 411.]
All of those requests were made and answered by Florence Roby and a list of other companies, including EcoLogix in my constituency, Imperial Polythene Products in Slough and Staeger Clear Packaging, which makes aprons and other PPE, but they were turned down despite offering to help. It was a chance for British companies to contribute to the crisis, and it was a chance for taxpayers’ money to support businesses through the pandemic to help with jobs and the economy, but they were turned down. That is why the National Audit Office report and investigation is so important.

David Jones: Amid all the damage caused by the coronavirus pandemic to public health, to the economy and to social wellbeing, arguably the biggest impact has been on residents of care homes and their families. Care home residents, among the most vulnerable members of our community, have been disproportionately impacted by covid-19. According  to the Office for National Statistics, up to 30 October about 28% of covid-related deaths recorded in England  and Wales were in care homes. It is therefore fully understandable that care home providers should be cautious about visits to their homes by family members. However, it should also be remembered that many care home residents are living with dementia. Being deprived of visits causes disorientation and distress to them and, equally, to their families.
My constituent Mrs Kathy Barham of Ruthin has described to me the impact that visiting restrictions are having on her family. Her mother, Mrs Mavis Addison, lives in a care home in Wallasey. She is a widow and has lived all her life in Wallasey. Until 2016, she lived independently, but she was then diagnosed with dementia and moved into a residential care home. That did not mean that she stopped enjoying life. Every weekend, Mrs Barham would travel from Ruthin to visit her, take her out for afternoon tea and meet friends and family. Mrs Addison’s life was good. She was happy, and she was living well with dementia.
Visits from family members are extremely important to those living with dementia. In fact, the Government’s own guidance acknowledges that. However, since the lockdown was imposed some eight months ago, Mrs Addison has not seen her daughter or any other member of her family. Distressingly, Mrs Barham now says that her mother is simply giving up because of the enforced lack of contact with her closest relatives, and that is surely the case for many thousands of other people who are living with dementia around our country. It is a sad, distressing and, I suggest, inhumane state of affairs.
The campaign group Rights for Residents, of which Mrs Barham is a member, is calling for an end to the current restrictions on visits to care home residents. Hospitals are managing to provide safe visits, and the Government could, frankly, do more to facilitate equally safe visits to care homes. But the sad truth is that, frequently, the families of care home residents are allowed to visit their loved ones only if they have become so ill that they are receiving end of life care. Indeed, after the easing of restrictions in early summer, care home residents became the only group in our society who continued to endure prolonged enforced separation from their families.
Rights for Residents is calling on the Government to pursue a more humane and nuanced approach to the treatment of care home residents. It asks for the Government to produce guidelines that encourage care providers to find safe ways to visit, rather than ones that in many cases are interpreted so as to impose blanket bans on contact with families. It suggests that key worker status should be granted to relatives, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), with access to the same testing regime as care home staff to facilitate the resumption of regular indoor visits. It also asks the Government to consider ways of developing an indemnity regime for care providers against legal action should the virus be brought into a care home—it is frequently the fear of litigation that inhibits visits to elderly people in care homes—and to develop updated comprehensive guidance that focuses on protecting vulnerable people against the appalling prospect of simply dying of loneliness.
Covid-19 is a dreadful disease, and it has inflicted illness and death on large numbers of our fellow citizens. It has, however, also brought mental anguish and distress to thousands of the most vulnerable and their families. With winter fast approaching, it is time for the Government  to put in place a new visiting regime that gives proper consideration to the needs of care home residents and their families, and they could do worse than listen to the recommendations of Rights for Residents.

Andrea Leadsom: I want to start with a quote from the incomparable C. S. Lewis, who said:
“The duty of planning tomorrow’s work is today’s duty”.
That is what I want to talk about—our duty to get several steps ahead of this virus so that we are on the front foot in the future. There is no doubt that this pandemic has tested every aspect of government. Right around the world, leaders have had to react fast to the extreme challenges that have faced them.
I know how annoying it is when former Cabinet Ministers poke at Front-Bench colleagues, so I make my remarks today with full appreciation of how hard this is; it is much easier to give advice than to actually make it happen. I simply want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give the House an update on whether the Government are now fighting fit, whether we are now outpacing the virus, and whether we can now get several steps ahead and think about the future beyond the pandemic.
First, with the fantastic news of the possibility of a vaccine, can my hon. Friend tell us how the Government have combined the efforts of public and private sectors, to make sure that every aspect of the vaccine programme is scalable from day one across the UK? Secondly, the evidence of the testing programme in Liverpool shows yet again how fantastic our armed forces are at dealing with complex logistics, so can my hon. Friend confirm that their expertise will be used in every part of the country? Thirdly, can my hon. Friend confirm that all preparations are in place to distribute the first wave of vaccines, to determine precisely who will receive them and in what order of priority?
All those steps are vital in giving us an advantage on the path to a post-covid future. Only then can we really set our sights on our ambition for economic success as an independent, sovereign United Kingdom. With that in mind, first, can my hon. Friend provide reassurance that the Government are looking ahead at the potential for the UK to lead the world in tackling global climate change? That is not only the right thing to do but, for this generation, it provides massive potential for new jobs and growth, and will help us to build our global free-trade relationships as we seek to lead the world in decarbonisation.
Secondly, can my hon. Friend tell me how the Government are using the experience of lockdown to better understand how embracing flexible work as standard in all employment could enable the workforce of the future to enjoy a far better work-life balance and improve the quality of life for many people? Thirdly, can she confirm that the Government are looking at what more can be done for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the lifeblood of our economy and the future job builders? Many business owners have seen their livelihoods destroyed by this unforgiving pandemic, and they will struggle to get back on their feet. We need a strategy to give entrepreneurs help and support, as well as confidence, to restart.
The pandemic has forced us to focus anew on those in society who need our help, including people who have suffered greatly. First, how do we ensure that never again will schoolchildren have to face teacher-assessed grades, with all the potential professional implications that that has for their lives? How will we make sure that younger children catch up so that we do not have a cohort who always struggle with literacy and numeracy? Secondly, how do the Government plan to help school leavers and university students who feel hopeless about their future job prospects? The Chancellor’s kickstart scheme is a great short-term fix, but it does not offer training or a long-term future path that many young people crave. Thirdly, what more can Government do for the most vulnerable in our society who have suffered serious harm and loneliness this year, including those who suffer from things such as Alzheimer’s or those with new babies who have been left isolated, with potential long-term harm for their families?
I believe that we have a bright future post the pandemic, but we must use the time that we have now to get ahead with our planning for the future. I began with a quote from C. S. Lewis, and I will close with another one:
“There are far, far better things ahead than any we leave behind.”
Let us make that true.

Nigel Evans: Order. After Nadia Whittome, who may speak for five minutes, we move to a time limit of up to four minutes.

Nadia Whittome: I would like to begin by thanking the many frontline workers in in my constituency in Nottingham—my friends, my neighbours and my constituents—for the hard work that they are doing to get us through this virus.
Like everyone here today, I was excited and hopeful to hear the news of Pfizer’s promising new vaccine. After months of painful sacrifices, there may finally be a way out of this crisis. It is early days, and we have to be cautious in our optimism, but we must do all that we can in the House to make sure that once a vaccine gets the go-ahead, we make its roll-out a success, and keep people safe in the meantime. That is why I am concerned about the rise of conspiracy theories. People across the country have had leaflets dropped through their doors warning against wearing masks. They have seen stickers saying that covid was a plot by a shadowy elite, or come across websites making false and disproven claims about vaccinations. Anti-lockdown protests have also been happening across the country, often featuring placards with known antisemitic tropes, or promoting the far-right conspiracy theory QAnon.
When I hear from people who become interested in these ideas, I get it. I do get it. I understand why people are scared and frustrated, and why they are looking for answers. It is hard being separated from your loved ones for months on end, worrying about how you are going to pay the rent and make ends meet and, in the meantime, watching the Government make a complete mess of the handling of the crisis. It is painful to know that, while we have had to sacrifice our friendships, passions and mental health, those in power have failed us over and  again: from ignoring their own scientific advice, which made this lockdown longer and harder, to failing to protect jobs and livelihoods, failing to plan and leaving our frontline workers without PPE, and reportedly spending £12 billion on a privatised test and trace system that proved to be a shambles. It is hard to blame people for becoming suspicious when they see the Government awarding multi-million pound contracts to their friends and donors, often without even a competitive tendering process, or when they see the Prime Minister’s closest adviser flout lockdown rules without any consequences.
When we spend time home alone isolated, it is easy to fall down dangerous rabbit holes and to start believing that it is all a lie, that the virus is a conspiracy or that lockdowns are unnecessary and merely a tool to control people. But we know that that is not the answer. I think all of us, in our heart of hearts, know that, even the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who has vacated his seat. It is our responsibility, as Members of this House, every single one of us, to fight this pandemic of misinformation, which is spreading like a virus and is sabotaging people’s efforts to save lives.
I am also concerned that some people are exploiting people’s pain to spread their hateful agendas, like the British National party, which, for the first time in my living memory, has been sending letters to small businesses in my constituency, or those ready to sacrifice human lives in order to stay relevant and boost their careers. I am referring here of course to, among many others, Nigel Farage, who in March was criticising the Government’s herd immunity approach and is now rebranding himself as the leader of the anti-lockdown movement.
My constituents have made it clear to me that they are not having any of it and that our city is not having any of it. I hope that everyone in this House can join me in condemning the cynical and ridiculous way that people, and the far right in particular, are exploiting people’s suffering to spread lies.

Laura Trott: I was glad to hear the Minister, in his opening remarks, refer to the need to focus on data because I am going to use my limited time today to argue for more data analysis specifically on the effectiveness of lockdown restrictions, and to support the move towards an approach that Professor Sir John Bell calls enablement, which essentially means using testing to allow us to continue as normal a life as possible.
As with many across the House, I had hoped that we could continue the management of coronavirus through a system of regional alert levels. Sadly, it was clear that that was not the case. Although it controlled the virus, the virus was spreading faster than we could accommodate in the NHS. The key question we now need to ask ourselves is, why was that the case? Why did the regional approach not slow the spread of the virus fast enough? We need to establish why, so we can fix it and resume the regional system with renewed confidence that it will contain the virus without the need for further national lockdown.
One aspect that needs more analysis in particular, is compliance. It is possible, indeed probable,that a lack of compliance played a role in the regional tier approach  insufficiently controlling the virus, but we do not have the data at the moment to fully establish that. Baroness Harding, the NHS’s test and trace head, appeared before a joint evidence session of the Health and Social Care and Science and Technology Committees yesterday. She gave preliminary data showing that 54% of people quarantine when asked, but also cautioned that the remaining 46% will include many people who have gone outside very briefly to get some fresh air or maybe to get some food that was completely necessary. It is clear that we need firmer data on this because, as we focus on driving up the number of contacts reached, it will ultimately not be effective if those people are not staying at home when they are asked to do so. We need a clear-eyed understanding of whether people are complying and a strategy for addressing it—whether we need to change the monetary incentives or the information we are giving people, or simply change the rules.
Professor Sir John Bell raised the point that we need buy-in for people to want to have a test and quarantine. He believes that many people are being put off having a test for fear of condemning their contacts to two weeks of quarantine without hope or reprieve. He suggested a system where the contacts of those infected are tested and released from quarantine if they test negative, and then rechecked every few days. I am really pleased that the Department has confirmed that it is pursuing that approach and trialling it in limited areas, and I hope it is something we can go forward with, because the data-led approach that accepts a level of risk in order to drive up compliance, with the aim of allowing people to return to normal as far as possible, is something that we should applaud.
I wholeheartedly echo the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) about testing in care homes and making sure that we get the relatives and friends of people in care homes tested so that they can visit, because it has been a devastating time for so many.
On the topic of evidence, please can we have the evidence base behind why golf, tennis and children’s sports have not been given an exemption from lockdown rules? If people can take a walk outside, they might as well be able to do it with some golf clubs.
Back on the theme of data, may we have a data-driven approach on whether we still need the curfew if we go back into a regional approach? While I completely understand why we introduced it, it had a devastating effect on hospitality across the country. If it works, we can understand why it is imposed, but if it does not work, we will all be better off without it.

Stephen Flynn: I want to start in the only way possible, which is by thanking all those voluntary groups and individuals in my constituency for their immense work over the course of many months this year. That thanks of course extends to key workers and, indeed, to all NHS staff in Aberdeen. I want to pay particular thanks to those staff in Woodend Hospital in Aberdeen, who just eight weeks ago delivered me a new hip, despite all the restrictions that are in place. I am incredibly thankful to them for their diligence, good humour and skill. Hopefully in the weeks to come I will be able to get rid of my crutch and run around here a bit more freely.
I want to turn to the wider situation in Aberdeen at this time, because I believe the House needs to be firmly aware of quite how drastically difficult the situation is. We are all facing challenging circumstances, but Aberdeen is unique in many respects, given the fact that not only have we had the pandemic, but we have had the perfect storm caused by the complete collapse in the oil price. We have seen from data in recent weeks that in the six months following March universal credit claimants in the city have more than doubled from just under 8,000 to almost 17,000. Oil & Gas UK has indicated that almost 35,000 jobs may be on the line in that industry. In recent weeks, it has emerged into the public domain that there has been a 75% reduction in job vacancies in the city that I represent. Those figures are terrifying.
We are a robust city—we are used to difficult times given the fluctuation in the oil price—but I am concerned about what the future holds. Ultimately the levers of power that can elicit positive change rest in this place, and because they rest in this place, it is incumbent on this UK Government to step up to the plate and deliver for my constituency.
In terms of universal credit, it is straightforward. The first thing that could be done is to extend the £20 universal credit uplift beyond the spring and to backdate it to legacy benefits. The second thing that must be delivered is an oil and gas sector deal, not just to protect industry now but to protect jobs in the future as we move towards a renewable transition—a just transition that protects all our futures and livelihoods within the city that I represent. The third thing, and perhaps the most important thing that the Government could do at this moment in time, is to provide the Scottish Parliament with the borrowing powers it has repeatedly asked for. The Scottish Parliament has repeatedly asked the UK Government for borrowing powers to provide the additional support that businesses and workers in Scotland need. That has fallen on deaf ears up to now, and that is a damned disgrace.
I will conclude, as I am conscious of time. We have been shown contempt in Scotland in relation to the lack of borrowing powers and by the fact we still have absolutely no idea what the totality of the Scottish budget will be next year, and that contempt will be seen at the polls. After 12 consecutive polls showing support for Scottish independence well in excess of 50%, this Government should be on watch, because the people of Scotland will decide a different path. We will take our future into our own hands.

Imran Ahmad Khan: First, I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who is not in his place at this moment, for providing the House with what I can only describe as an energising tonic—perhaps an antidote—after what I can only describe as the soporific dirge that immediately preceded him.
The news that the first effective coronavirus vaccine could prevent 90% of people from catching covid-19 is incredibly reassuring. That success may well indicate the first steps towards returning to normal life and an end to the damage caused by lockdowns, a renewed focus on economic recovery and people regaining the freedoms and liberties curtailed during this crisis. Crucially, the efforts of BioNTech and Pfizer demonstrate the power of the private sector and of capitalism to benefit everyone.
In March this year, Pfizer and BioNTech announced details of their collaboration to develop a covid-19 vaccine. In doing so, there has been limited state involvement. Pfizer accepted advance purchases from a number of Governments, but did not accept conditional research and development funds, including funds from Operation Warp Speed in the United States. The millions spent and the resources diverted towards an uncertain innovation by these two firms have been at their own risk, with no guarantee of success.
Without the bureaucracy that state-run projects are burdened with, Pfizer and BioNTech have been able to focus solely on the scientific challenge that confronted them, whether that be research and development, the logistics of manufacturing or the operations of distribution. Dr Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, rightly stated that he
“wanted to liberate our scientists from any bureaucracy.”
This extraordinary effort demonstrates that profit incentives and altruism are not diametrically opposed or in any way contradictory. The efforts of Pfizer and BioNTech will save countless lives and help forge a path of recovery, while both firms stand to make a profit. Her Majesty’s Government made the right decision to pre-purchase 10% of Pfizer’s global supply. Once again, it shows the vote of confidence we should all give to the private sector in tackling great challenges. When we emerge from this crisis—and we shall—we should unleash the full power of our private sector and unburden it from excessive regulations and high taxes. Only through doing so can we ensure a sustainable recovery.
Finally, I would like to thank the constituents of Wakefield and the wider Wakefield district, who in the first lockdown adhered to the rules, did exactly what they said, saved lives and protected the NHS. When we came out of that lockdown they, with gusto only known by Yorkshiremen, took the Chancellor’s offer of a bargain, with more than 130,000 people utilising eat out to help out. We had the biggest bounce back of anyone in the region, with a 27% increase in footfall in Wakefield. When we were put on the warning list for covid, people adhered to the rules, our rate came down and we were no longer on it; we had a lower covid rate than almost anyone else. Again, they have been put into these particular strictures, but there is light at the end of the tunnel and I have every confidence that yet again the people of Wakefield will do the right thing, and protect the NHS and each other.

Emma Hardy: The Minister may be aware that Hull has the highest rate of covid infections in the country; we have 161 patients in Hull Royal Infirmary, 16 of whom are in intensive care, and 265 have died since the pandemic began. The situation in Hull and the East Riding is a public health emergency, so where are these Nightingale hospitals to help? I have been told that they have been mothballed and will not be reopened. Our rate is double that of the average in England, and I am incredibly worried about the situation in schools. Despite the headlines saying that they remain open, year groups are being sent home, not to self-isolate, but because teachers are not available to teach in them. Where is the testing for staff, to keep these schools open? Where is this  additional support? Why has Hull not had support from the armed forces as Liverpool has had when its rates became so high? We have been promised 10,000 tests, but that will not be enough. This is not a league table I want my city to top; we need that additional help from Government if we are going to move down it.
Losing someone hurts. On Monday, I lost my nan to covid-19. She did not die in Hull; she died somewhere else. I hope that if my mum is watching, she knows that I am sending her all my love from this place and that as soon as possible I will be round there to give her a hug and we can remember all the wonderful things my nan did. It was only last year when I stood up in this Chamber and told everyone what a remarkable woman she was. I urge people to take this situation seriously.
The northern powerhouse study shows that because we started from an uneven point in the north, covid has had a disproportional impact on the cities we represent. The report today says that we have had an extra 12.4 deaths per 100,000 in the northern powerhouse that in the rest of England put together, and an extra 57.7 deaths per 100,000 due to all causes during this pandemic. Things are not equal; this pandemic has not impacted all of us equally, and it has an economic cost. To all those who make the false divide between health and the economy, I say: think again. All those additional people who have died in the areas in the northern powerhouse have had an economic impact—it is not just the heartbreak of people who have lost loved ones. Some £6.86 billion has been lost in economic growth. There is no divide between health and economy; sort out the problem with health and then deal with the problem with the economy. They are not mutually exclusive.
Compliance is falling in my area, and there is mistrust of the Government. We need transparency, honesty and openness. We need a Government to admit it when they get things wrong. We need to explain why the rules are different for golf and for walking, for private worship and for visiting the supermarket, because people will then understand. The gap from Government in information, clarity and transparency is being filled with misinformation, lies and dangerous fake news on social media telling people that this is not real. Well it is real when you lose people. Some 50,000 lives have already been lost in this pandemic. That is 50,000 families who have been impacted. I do not want a Government who are focused on PR, bluster and incoherent metaphors. What I want is a Government just to give people honest and straightforward advice, so that together we can try to deal with this virus.

Joy Morrissey: May I offer my heartfelt condolences to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy)? There is nothing worse than losing a member of your family that you love, and the reason I am here today is to speak on behalf of a mother in my constituency who also lost someone very dear to her—her 21-year-old son, Jamie. Jamie represents a cohort that often falls through the cracks in care, not just during a pandemic but in everyday existence. It is the cohort of working-age disabled adults in long-term residential care.
Jamie’s mother battled for him from the day of his birth to ensure that he had the care and provision that he needed to succeed. She was a teacher, and she is a  local community champion. During lockdown, she was denied access to her son. She was unable to visit him and watched in horror as his health and situation deteriorated day by day. He became catatonic, refused to eat, and developed open wounds and bed sores. It was not until lockdown ended that she was able to have access to her son, her only son, but by that point it was too late. Jamie had passed away the week before.
I had been unaware of the situation that Jamie was in, and I am speaking today to raise awareness so that other family members may have access and special visitation rights to a child who is in adult social care and who is struggling during the pandemic. I hope that my speaking about Jamie will help them to get that access and that we will remember to have humanity and compassion for those who are vulnerable and suffering during the pandemic. As a mother myself, I cannot imagine not being able to see my child. I know that many Members in this House have older children, and perhaps they will testify that parenting does not stop at 18 or at 21. You are a parent to your child forever, and to be unable to help and advocate for a child with complex disabilities who cannot speak for themselves is a tragedy. I am here to speak on Jamie’s behalf so that others will have a voice.
I am so grateful for the Government’s announcement that a vaccine is coming and that a mass roll-out of testing is being organised. That will go a long way to help the most vulnerable, but I want this very small cohort to be remembered. I want safeguarding measures to be put in place. As we go into the winter months, we must remember that this patient cohort needs additional support, care and patient advocacy, and that the parents need visitation rights so that they can speak on behalf of those who have no voice.
I would like to pay special tribute to the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), for her work behind the scenes on this issue. She has spent a great deal of time helping and assisting, and she does not get the credit she deserves for trying to advocate for this patient cohort and raising the need for additional support. I thank her, and I thank the Minister here today for answering our questions during this debate. I would also ask that perhaps in future Ministers from other Departments could come to the House to respond to the covid-19 general debates, so that we can ask specific questions and tailor our debate perhaps towards education or the Treasury—

Rosie Winterton: Order. We need to move on.

Maria Miller: Our thoughts are with everyone who has lost a family member or friend to this dreadful virus, and we thank people for speaking up on their behalf. I would like to take this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to all the emergency workers, NHS workers, teachers, school staff, local authority workers, volunteers and local charities who have done an amazing job of work over the past nine months across the country and particularly in my constituency. They face more months of having to deal with the reality of this virus. Mass testing and a vaccine provide notes of optimism, but they will not stop the spread of the infection here and now.
It is particularly difficult for us to debate this issue in this Chamber, because the rates of infection are so very different in different areas of the country. Indeed, I have been contacted by my own constituents, asking why the regional approach was set aside in favour of a lockdown: well, I am afraid that in my area, we are starting to see the reason why. Although the infection rates are now at 135 cases per 100,000—rates that are infinitesimally lower than some of the areas in Hull, as I know from speaking to colleagues—and we have just 23 people in our local hospital, we are starting to see those rates go up. Unless we follow with great fastidiousness the restrictions that are in place, I fear that we will see the sorts of rates that have been generated in other parts of the country—all the way across the country, indeed, down to the south-east.
I know that many people are concerned about the decision to reintroduce lockdown across the country, and the implications for businesses, individuals and families, but we cannot underestimate this virus or the exponential way in which it increases. The one thing that we did learn from the first wave is the importance of the NHS being able to continue to treat everybody who needs urgent care, not just those with coronavirus, which is a point I made to the Minister during his opening statement. It is tragic that so many people died in the first nine months of the year—far more than would normally have been the case. As I mentioned to the Minister, in my constituency we saw a death rate increase of 26% compared with the same period in the previous year. We have to make sure that people who are ill for other reasons continue to seek treatment, but they will not be able to do so if there is such a rapid rate of increase in the number of people who require hospitalisation or more intensive treatments. That is why we need to make sure that this lockdown works, and that is why the Government and the Minister are taking these very difficult decisions. I urge people who have contacted me and other Members about this issue to understand that that is why the lockdown is so crucial now.
My thoughts are with those who have lost members of their family, but also with those who face a huge job of work during the winter months in keeping our schools and hospitals open for the future. Now is the time that we can take action, and we need to do so.

Ruth Cadbury: The incredibly moving contributions from my colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), remind us that every death is a family member and a friend; this reaches every one of us. Today, we hear that the death toll from covid has hit 50,000, the fifth highest in the world, but the UK is only the 21st country by size of population: world-beating, but for all the wrong reasons.
Throughout the past few months, we have seen amazing acts of kindness in my constituency to keep everyone safe, to support those who are vulnerable and to protect those in need. Community groups staffed mainly by volunteers have stepped forward, from the hot meals being provided by the Open Kitchen, the gurdwara and the mosques, to the food parcels from the Hounslow Community FoodBox in Brentford and the Bridgelink food bank in Isleworth, and of course many individuals  have stepped forward to help their neighbours—I thank them all. Hounslow council has also stepped up in response to the new needs by providing services to local residents, such as delivering 8,000 further food packages and making 20,000 calls to those who are shielding, while working to tackle long-term problems around unemployment and job reskilling—issues that are so important, as so many of my constituents work at Heathrow airport.
That is why the incompetent approach of our national Government to key issues has been beyond frustrating. Until the Government start delivering on the covid response, infection and death rates will stay high, which means that lockdowns will have to be extended, repeated, or both. We all know that this is a challenging time for the Government and for Governments across the world, but key issues have been known about for months, yet little or nothing from the UK Government seems to change.
It is a simple truth that to control disease and infection in a population, the more testing and contact tracing that can be done, the better. We saw the fiasco at the start of September when my constituents were being sent to Cardiff, Southampton and further to get tested. We have consistently faced delayed and lost tests. I submitted written questions to Ministers asking how many test results were not returned. Shockingly, I was told that that information was not collected. If the data is not being collected, the success of the contract cannot be measured, and if it cannot be measured, there are no penalties for non-delivery. What a waste of public money.
Furthermore, a high contact tracing rate is essential to control the spread of infection, yet week after week we have seen track and trace in England—a multimillion-pound private sector operation—perform appallingly compared with public sector-run programmes in places such as Wales, which is reaching 90% of close contacts, whereas in England the figure has plunged to below 60%. Is that another missed target, or was a target contact tracing rate not included in the test and trace contract?
Before entering this place, I served as a Hounslow councillor and an office holder at the Local Government Association. If we had seen the level of cronyism, gross incompetence, spending of millions of pounds—not even billions—and targets missed in a local authority in the way that the Government are behaving, Ministers at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government would have called in the inspectors. PPE contracts have gone to companies with no ability to deliver, while competent UK companies have been ignored. When entrusted with taxpayers’ money, the Government should first ask whether the public sector can do the job—GPs for testing, and public health directors for track and trace. If the public sector cannot do it, proper contracting—playing by the rules—should be essential.

Sally-Ann Hart: I endorse the pleas of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). It has been nearly 10 months since the word “covid-19” became part of our everyday vocabulary. Since then, we have seen the infection spread and businesses required to close, with  small independent shops in particular suffering in my beautiful constituency of Hastings and Rye. We have seen unemployment rise across our one nation and, sadly, many families stricken with grief at the loss of a loved one or not being able to visit them in their hour of need.
It has been a truly traumatic and harrowing year, but there have been rays of light and hope. We have seen communities rally round to support the vulnerable and individuals such as Captain Sir Tom Moore inspire us to pull together. The Government have shown true leadership by building Nightingale hospitals in record time, expanding our testing capacity to levels considered unimaginable and providing unprecedented financial support to businesses. We now see signs of a vaccine within our grasp.
I want to focus my remarks on a generation of young people who risk missing out on getting the best possible start in their careers—those who are just leaving college, have graduated this year or have completed an apprenticeship only to find that employers are not hiring, whole sectors are at risk of collapse, their futures are in limbo and their dreams of starting careers are becoming nightmares. Last week, I was contacted by a constituent in his mid-20s. He has recently trained as a pilot, having spent years studying, and is ready to embark on a fantastic career in the aviation sector. Only 10 months ago, all seemed fine, and he and his coursemates were on track to become the next generation of commercial airline pilots. Covid-19 has put a stop to that.
That constituent is not alone. My inbox has been filled with cases of youngsters starting out on their careers who are now having to move home to their parents, reskill and look for work elsewhere. Most have not yet found work at all. The kickstart scheme for 16 to 24-year-olds is very welcome, and it will go some way to helping this generation of young people, but we must think long term and prepare for life after covid-19. I urge the Government to focus on the economic recovery for sectors across the UK that have been severely hit, such as aviation, tourism and hospitality to name but a few.
We have a generation of highly skilled young professionals—from pilots to brewers, accountants to lawyers, engineers to musicians and IT developers—all of whom are trained and ready to work, but find themselves in this period of limbo as we continue to battle the virus. We have a vaccine in sight that could begin to end this nightmare. Now must be the time to set out the long-term plan to support these industries and get them back on their feet, so that this generation of highly skilled youngsters, who are desperate and eager to get on with their lives, are not wasted and are able to find work in the sectors that they have dreamed of joining.

Matt Western: I thank all those on the frontline at Warwick Hospital, University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire and our care homes, as well as the police, our local council and those in our schools who have worked throughout this period. I thank all the volunteers for the extraordinary work that they have done in such extraordinary times. There has been such little respite for all of them; I commend and thank them all.
Regrettably, it is going to be impossible to address all the problems that we face in four minutes, but perhaps I could say that it would have helped greatly if the Government had been able to lead by example and been more consistent in some of their policies. For example—I have mentioned this previously—how was it that, for some reason, we could allow people to travel on an aeroplane for three and a half hours, sitting cheek by jowl, but we could not allow those same people to sit in a cinema or a theatre, on a train, a bus or elsewhere? How was it that garden centres were allowed to open, but car showrooms were not? Eventually that was agreed to, and I press again for it to be allowed now.
I will focus my comments on the impact of covid-19 on our social care sector. If I have time, I will also mention the self-employed and furlough. The public were forgiving at the outset for many months, but they are rapidly tiring, and the Government’s actions are having a profound impact on their tolerance of and compliance with the guidance. That guidance is not clear; it is inconsistent, and people are struggling to follow. We have tier for this and tiers for that—tiers for universities and tiers for different parts of the country. But it is as we enter winter with the prospect of not being able to visit loved ones in care homes that my constituents are desperate to see family members and demand urgent action.
In the first lockdown up to 12 June, almost 20,000 residents of care homes in England died with covid-19. In fact, 28,000 excess deaths were recorded in care homes in England during the same period. In Warwickshire, we saw more than 400 excess deaths, which is why I called for—and continue to call for—an inquiry. As Amnesty International concluded in its report in early October,
“a number of decisions and policies adopted by authorities at the national and local level in England increased care home residents’ risk of exposure to the virus…notably…Mass discharges from hospital into care homes of patients infected or possibly infected with Covid-19 and advice that ‘[n]egative tests are not required prior to transfers/admissions into the care home’.”
If Amnesty has time, I would very much welcome its representatives to Warwickshire in to help me get this inquiry, which is essential and should have been done through the summer to prepare us for this second wave.
The ongoing restrictions have meant that people continue to be unable to visit their loved ones. It is a fact that over half of care home residents die within 15 months of moving into a care home. Many residents have now spent more than eight months without any visits from family or friends, with huge consequences for their wellbeing. Many care homes in Warwick and Leamington have stopped all visits due to the second wave, so it is critical that the Government act urgently to enable family members to visit their loved ones.
A simple action would be to amend visitor status. Organisations such as the Alzheimer’s Society are urging for an acceleration of the pilot key worker status scheme to enable family members and carers with access to regular testing and PPE to visit safely and provide care that people with dementia so desperately need. After all, SAGE states that infection rates from visitors to care homes are very low, and if visitors had access to PPE, weekly testing and infection control training, the risk would be significantly lower still. We also need to be clear about discharges from hospitals into care homes—a process that led to a significant proportion of care  home deaths in the first wave. If there is one thing that the Government could do, it would be to change the visitor status of family members so that they could see their loved ones over the coming months and allow them the dignity that they should be afforded.

Rosie Winterton: I want to try to get everybody in, so I will reduce the time limit to three minutes after the next speaker.

Nicholas Fletcher: As we all know, on Friday 30 October, several Members of the Cabinet held a meeting to lock down the country for a second time—a decision that all participants knew would have huge consequences for the country, for the economy, for public health and for the nation’s morale. No one should be in any doubt about how difficult such a decision would have been to make. Since the beginning of this pandemic, the Government have come under criticism from many different sides. I believe that much of this has been unfair given these extraordinary circumstances. While hon. and right hon. Members have made valid points about what could have been done better, it is too easy for people to snipe from the sidelines after events have long since passed. It is far more challenging to lead.
The Government have also been accused of U-turns, but listening to MPs and the public to recognise where there have been policy mistakes and to act accordingly is an example of being a pragmatic Government. No doubt lessons have been learned, and I hope the Government are therefore developing ways in which they can deal with any future pandemic. By learning from our experience and from our partners across the world, we should be producing a “What to do in a pandemic” manual as we speak. That is what should be happening, and I do hope that it is.
I thank all who work in the NHS and social care sector, and all the key workers who have helped and continue to help us get through this period, but I also want to thank the Government. I thank them for protecting my constituents by providing the furlough scheme, the self-employed income support scheme, business grants, the uplift in universal credit, and the base floor rise. I thank the Health Secretary for all the work he has done to ensure that our hospitals remain open and covid patients receive the best possible care. Among the media flurry and the constant sniping, it is hard to remember the progress we have made since March, with the half a million tests that are being carried out daily, the thousands of ventilators that are now in operation, and the track and trace app, which has been downloaded by 20 million people. Meanwhile, while all this has been going on, Ministers have always taken the time to speak to me and to Members across the House about our concerns and those of our constituents.
I truly believe that it was courageous for the Prime Minister to inform me and fellow Conservative MPs of his regrets about the necessity to go into a second lockdown. He did this knowing that he would upset many on his own side and be harangued by some Members on the Opposition Benches. Yet he apologised and went through with what he thought was right. That is a true sign of leadership—going forward boldly for the good of the country, regardless of any potential political consequences.

Richard Thomson: I thank all those who are working at present to keep us safe and comfortable, offer my condolences to all who have lost loved ones, and echo everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) said about the looming economic threat that is facing the north-east of Scotland.
Over the course of the past few weeks, I have met a number of representatives of businesses in my constituency and further afield, particularly in the hospitality sector. Their frustration at the need for continued restrictions is entirely understandable and understood. Walking through the streets of London this week, I have been absolutely struck by the number of closed bars, restaurants and shops, serving as a stark warning of what we face when the response to rising infections from this virus is inadequate to the circumstances.
In many debates over the course of the past few months, I have highlighted the shortcomings of the UK’s fiscal framework with regard to the devolved Administrations—the lack of borrowing powers and the wait for Barnett figures to trickle through. Last week we also saw the fiasco of whether or not the furlough scheme would apply, with Government Ministers seeming to disagree with one another on that. The last-minute furlough extension by the Chancellor, while welcome, also created huge uncertainty and has led to many people losing their jobs who did not need to if only he had been more open about his intentions and not been left to be bounced into it at the last minute.
In terms of the response, particularly for the hospitality sector, we need the reduced VAT rate for tourism to continue, and non-domestic rates to continue at their current zero level. Through Barnett, we need to see that commitment in England so that it can be followed through elsewhere in the UK.
That still leaves 3 million excluded but in the final seconds that I have, I will focus not on those who are excluded, but on those who are conspicuously included—those appointed to positions without open recruitment processes and those who are awarded contracts without following open procurement processes. We are entitled to have assurances that the best people are shaping our responses—absolutely we do—but surely we are also entitled to the assurance that the decisions taken are justified for their impact, effectiveness and public health benefits to the many and not just for the financial benefit to the few. Throughout this crisis, under the cover of urgency, too many contracts have been awarded at too high a price that have run into too many problems and benefited too many people who are too close to the centre of power. That cannot and must not continue.

Marco Longhi: My constituents are dutifully doing everything they can to halt this deadly disease during the second lockdown. As we commemorate today those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in previous wars, we are fighting a war ourselves against an invisible enemy, so it is a timely reminder that we should also think about all our key workers and constituents, some of whom are making significant sacrifices and some of whom have paid the ultimate sacrifice in fighting this terrible war. We have seen businesses battered, religious services banned and we have criminalised families meeting. We have seen some  unprecedented restrictions imposed on our daily lives. I fully appreciate and respect that restrictions are vital in keeping the R rate low to protect our vulnerable constituents and to prevent our NHS from being overwhelmed, but we owe it to everybody to explain with robust and clear scientific evidence why we must intrude into people’s lives when we do so with such significance.
For the avoidance of doubt, I fully back the health team, the Prime Minister’s decisions and the Chancellor’s generosity. However, here comes the dreaded but: with Government relying on scientific advice to inform policy, as someone who is an engineer and who understands the statistical variability of forecasting, I have found it very difficult to accept how Government advisers can display a chart that shows a flat worst-case prediction curve with other curves modelling daily death rates between five and 10 times worse at their peak compared with the one they had originally modelled. I must question how we could reach such wildly different outcomes. Public compliance is key, especially while a vaccine is not yet available, but compliance will also be a function of the consistency and credibility of the information that we use to back up our decisions.

Suzanne Webb: I am taking a slightly more optimistic approach in this debate—some may say I am a rational optimist by nature—and I am going to use the limited time I have to focus on our local jobcentres, which have played a crucial role in our response to coronavirus, working in the trenches on the economic frontline.
Universal credit is standing up to the challenge of covid-19. The Department for Work and Pensions has injected £9.3 billion into the welfare safety net, so this is an opportunity for me to highlight the work of those at the Stourbridge jobcentre, led magnificently by their regional team. All have gone above and beyond. They have risen to the challenge, working around the clock to protect livelihoods. I have thanked the team privately, but it is fitting to publicly say thank you to those who are working on the economic frontline to get people back into work.
There is no doubt that the economic impact of covid-19 will see a pool of labour seeking new opportunities, but we will also have thousands of businesses requiring the skills to enable a new business agenda. Even before the pandemic, this was a time of changing technologies because of automation, artificial intelligence and digitalisation. The focus therefore must be on reskilling and upskilling to deliver new business models in a post- pandemic era. The world has transformed more in the last eight months than for decades, and, with it, so has the skillset required to deliver our regional and national economic agendas.
The pandemic has accelerated the pace of change, impacting on the world of work to a degree not seen before other than in the second world war, when 5 million women entered the workforce. The gap created by departing soldiers meant opportunities for women; it led to millions of women reskilling to take jobs, making the bombs and airplanes, fuelling the war effort, and we can do it again. Our best vaccine against the economic impacts of covid-19 is reskilling and retraining. We must change, adapt and be innovative. We all have our own motivation to retain our fiscal wellbeing. There is also the wider fiscal motivation to rebuild our country’s economic  wellbeing. We need a skills revolution, with the unemployed retrained in new technologies, creating opportunities. Sector-based work academies will have a valuable role to play.
With the Government set to roll out mass testing, not forgetting the much welcomed prospect of a vaccine, we now have some certainty that we can start to rebuild our workplaces with the confidence of making them covid-secure. How we come out of the pandemic will be a defining moment, and I am thankful that this crucial moment will come under this Government. We will come through this if we were united as one nation.
Finally, covid has taken much from us, but it cannot take away our Remembrance. That leads me to conclude that we should not forget those who gave their today for our tomorrows, and we should also not forget those lives that have been tragically lost to the silent and ruthless killer that we know to be covid-19.

Richard Graham: I agree with many other contributors today that we have to use mass testing and effective self-isolation to contain the pandemic to make our local tiered approach work, so our message in Gloucester and Gloucestershire can be, “Stick with the rules now so that we can get back to almost normal on 2 December.”
Today, however, I want to focus not so much on successful containment but more on the eventual exit strategy, and let me start, therefore, by paying tribute to the chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, for creating the vaccine taskforce led by Kate Bingham. First, I must make a declaration of no interest: I have never spoken to or met Kate Bingham, she has no idea who I am, and I have never been and am not an investor in any fund that she may have been responsible for. But I do know that the taskforce she leads has backed the BioNTech-Pfizer and AstraZeneca Oxford university vaccines and four others out of the 150 vaccines in development that it considered.
We now know that the Pfizer vaccine leads the scientific race and AstraZeneca may be close behind. Surely the fact that Kate Bingham secured for the UK 40 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine in June and 100 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine is immensely reassuring, and we should recognise that this quality of research, analysis and procurement could not possibly have been done from the civil service, which is why the Government and Sir Patrick, with all his previous experience of vaccine research and development and manufacturing, chose the best person for the job and did so without paying her a penny.
If we want third party evidence for what has been achieved, Professor John Bell of Oxford university said:
“It’s not a given that the UK…would have ended up where it is now without her.”
So it is disappointing that The Sunday Times, the Leader of the Opposition and others criticised the appointment of Kate Bingham and those of her comms team who helped the Government recruit 305,000 volunteers to give the evidence that AstraZeneca and others need to produce a well-tested vaccine. For we need both the vaccine to be approved and the anti-vaxxers to be routed for our exit strategy to work and avoid the damage done, for example, by Dr Wakefield’s anti-MMR lies 20 years ago.
Let me make three quick observations. First, the private sector, academia and the Government must work together for a successful exit strategy. Secondly, Sir Patrick said in evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, in answer to a question that I gave him, that such a vaccine would normally take 15 years to create. Let us all pay tribute to those who have come so far so fast, and those who take a political stance against our great multinational pharmaceuticals need to reconsider their prejudices. Lastly, these vaccines have been procured by the UK for the peoples of all four parts of the UK and if—it is not guaranteed yet—it turns out that the work of the vaccine taskforce can provide all of us with protection in our greatest hour of need, wherever is our home, we are indeed better together with one NHS, one vaccine taskforce and one United Kingdom.

Lee Rowley: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today.
It is incredible how quickly things change. The last time that I properly spoke in this Chamber about coronavirus was in September when virus rates were lower, restrictions were looser and hospitals were emptier. Covid continues to dominate us in a way that we never wanted it to do and our lives remain shaped by the battle against it. Throughout it all, however, there has been one constant: the continuing resolve of everyone to get through this.
I want to say thank you to everyone in North East Derbyshire. We know how difficult this is. We know that our ability to work, to love, to live, and to offer support are being affected every single day, and we are grateful for their forbearance at this difficult time. And in the past few days, the reason for that endurance is becoming clearer. Our job of suppressing the virus was never for nothing. All along, we have been building a bridge to a time when we have other weapons to fight this problem, and the announcements of this week may be showing that we are actually starting to get there. Light is on the horizon, yet we know that we will not get there immediately. Even if solutions are coming, we still face soul-searching questions.
The first big question remaining will be one of evidence. Every day, massive decisions are being made on our behalf and we are grappling with the foundations upon which these are made. In searching for evidence, we face a blizzard of data and hypotheses. Right now, within a few clicks, the web will tell us both that the case fatality rate is negligible and that it is substantial, that tests work and that they do not, that masks are life-savers and that they can be life-takers. Should we wish, we can literally choose our facts, even though only one set of those premises is actually true. It is no wonder that constituents are confused.
That goes to the second challenge that also bedevils us: uncertainty. Our natural instinct is to recoil from ambiguity, yet this virus forces us to deal with it. There is uncertainty about how it works and how it will act in the winter. The virus forces us to make decisions now on the basis of what might happen in 40 days’ time. It is a challenging mix, which, quite understandably, has worn people down. Yet our job is to deal with the world as it is, not how we wish it to be. For those residents who are frustrated or anxious, I say that I am, too. But if  there were a quick answer, it would have been found already. If there were a single solution, it would have been used. We are here because, for now, we think that what we are doing is proportionate and the least worst option while we wait for the alternatives, and those alternatives are coming. This cannot, must not, will not last forever, but, for the first time in our history, we may actually be able to turn back a pandemic in mid-flow. If that happens, it will be the most remarkable test of our ingenuity, our resolve and our willingness to get there. I say hold on, we will get there.

James Sunderland: Broadly speaking, I recognise the hard truth that lockdown 2 was necessary to keep our NHS and emergency services from being overrun. Although I would have wanted to see the tier system endure a bit longer, I recognise that it took strong leadership from the Government to make the strong calls that they have done, and I commend them for that. It is also hugely welcome to hear the news of the vaccine developments, and I recognise the huge human cost that has been spoken about a great deal this evening.
I want to focus if I may on the economy. We are now past the point of no return with regard to the economy. If we choose to go back to the tiered system, it cannot come soon enough, given the lives and livelihoods put at risk by the restrictions. We need to see the UK open for business. Yes, we must take the virus seriously, but we cannot let it prevent us from living our lives. Therefore, if a new normal is necessary, we need to learn to live alongside the virus, not to hide from it.
There are certain areas that the Government would wish to focus on right now and it is really important that we do that. First of all, aviation is a particular concern to me. It concerns 330,000 jobs worth more than £28 billion. It is a desperate position for aviation.
The leisure industry has also been hit harder than most. Despite reports of very low infection rates at fitness centres and outdoor sports providers, not to mention the ever-growing body of evidence of mental health benefits, they are yet to be recognised as part of the solution rather than part of the problem. We have 600,000 signatures on a petition against gym closures, and I urge the Government to please look very closely at that.
Turning now to entertainment, although it is great to see elite sport back on TV, we cannot forget those grassroots sports providers—league 1 and league 2 clubs for example—and also the Football Association redundancies, plus the whole raft of sports all across the UK. Exhibitions employ 600,000 people. The UK currently exports £2 billion-worth of exhibition services every year. We are a top 10 global exporter, so we must put that right as soon as we can.
Lastly, I have a few words to say on my constituency of Bracknell, if I may. These points have come directly from my constituents via correspondence over the last couple of weeks. First, the infringement of civil liberties needs to be balanced against the need to restrict the spread of the virus, so I urge the Government please to perhaps look at that balance more carefully. Some 100,000 people currently make up the cancer backlog,  and we must do some work there as well. On flu jabs, I believe there is a shortage of flu jabs. People are asking locally about getting flu jabs at local pharmacies and surgeries, and I again urge the Government to look at that. Finally, I would like to see a permanent Test and Trace site in Berkshire.

Rosie Winterton: The thing is that if everybody took two minutes, instead of three minutes, everybody would get in. I am not going to reduce the time limit officially, but if colleagues want to be considerate to each other, that would be my advice.

Anthony Browne: I will try to be as brief as I can. I want to start by paying tribute to the people of South Cambridgeshire who have helped us all get through this pandemic—the care workers, the volunteers, the medical staff, the nurses and doctors, who have been working heroically, but also people from the private sector. I have found it very dismaying that the opposition parties have spent so long attacking the private sector. In my constituency, they have been developing the ventilators and doing genome decoding of coronavirus. They have developed the tests—a whole range of different tests—and they are producing the tests and delivering the tests for the Government. Most of the coronavirus tests are done in the private sector, not the public sector. They have developed rapid mass testing, but also the vaccine. We have heard a lot about this vaccine from Pfizer—and the whole country is hoping—but there is another vaccine from AstraZeneca, and its global headquarters are in South Cambridgeshire. We are all expecting results from that in a few weeks’ time, which will hopefully be as good as the Pfizer results. Again, that is a vaccine of which the Government in their wisdom, under Kate Bingham’s leadership, have bought a large stock.
In South Cambridgeshire, the balance that we have heard about from various Members—between lives and livelihoods, between lives and liberties—has been a particularly difficult decision. We have one of the lowest infection rates in the country, and we have had only one death from coronavirus in the last five months. A lot of companies have complained quite vociferously, and understandably, about the imposition of a national lockdown, but I have come to agree with the Government that it is actually needed, because cases have been taking off. We are now seeing that in South Cambridgeshire in recent days, and cases are now at a record level.
I want to make a few, very quick suggestions of what I think the Government could do or should think about doing to help reassure the public that they have got the right balance. One is that they could produce a cost-benefit analysis, with the quality-adjusted life years that they use in other areas; on the Treasury Committee, we have been looking at that. They could use the World Health Organisation definition of deaths, which is people who die from coronavirus, rather than with coronavirus, or if they have had it in the last 28 days. That is the standard international definition, and it is lower. They could provide an official estimate of the case fatality rate, which is the proportion of people who have the infection and die. That, by quite a few estimates, has dropped really quite sharply—by about two thirds—since the start. On 2 December, when the national lockdown  ends, they could move to a more aggressive regional approach with a tier 4, which I know the Government are thinking about. With this, I think the Government will provide a lot more reassurance that they are getting the balance right, and it will help us get through this.

Shaun Bailey: I promise I will keep this brief. As is often the case in these debates, we come in having written one speech and end up giving another. I think we have heard some great contributions today. I want to start by paying tribute to the voluntary and community groups in my communities in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton, who have absolutely risen to the challenge during these unprecedented times to support some of the most vulnerable in our community. Whether it has been delivering food, being on the end of the phone or just galvanising people together, they have been absolutely amazing. Let us face it: this is completely unprecedented. For many of us, if you had told us 12 months ago that this was going to happen, we would have looked at you with amazement. To be honest, if you had told me 12 months ago I was going to be here, I would have looked at you with amazement, but that is another story altogether.
The fact is that this is a difficult one. Last week was probably the first time in this House that I have been really torn, because we are having to find that balance with people’s liberties. Yes, the public health crisis is absolutely there; we can see it in the news and we can see it in the data. Every single person impacted by covid-19 is an individual and it is a tragedy when we see those deaths happen, but it is getting to a point where constituents come to me and say, “I haven’t seen my relatives in months,” “There is a choice as to whether I can go to my loved one’s funeral,” “I cannot go because the capacity is not there,” and “I cannot see my loved ones get married.” It is difficult. We have seen this technological renaissance through things like Zoom and Teams and people have been able to connect, but that does not replace physical human interaction at all.
The fact is that the Government’s economic response has been great, and that is what my constituents say to me. The Government have stepped up and given support to some of our most vulnerable communities through their economic response. I do not envy my colleagues on the Front Bench at all given the task ahead of them.
I am conscious of the need to keep my comments brief so that other colleagues can speak, so I shall just say this. Ultimately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said, we are going to have to get to a point at which we live through a new normal, because when it comes to life, we can exist or we can live. The fact is that at the moment many of my constituents feel like they are just existing, and they want to start living again.

Robbie Moore: I wish to spend the short time that I have focusing on where restrictions on social contact have been the most damaging, which is for residents in care homes.
Last month, I was contacted by a constituent who since March has been unable to visit her 96-year-old aunt, who unfortunately suffers from dementia and Parkinson’s disease. Last week, a report from the medical  journal The Lancet suggested that an estimated 70% of residents in UK care homes are living with dementia and memory problems. Replacing visits from recognisable loved ones with staff wearing unfamiliar and often frightening protective equipment can understandably leave residents extremely distressed. For care home residents with dementia, regular contact with friends and family is vital. The fear of many families is that when finally they are reunited with their loved ones, they will simply not remember them. That is a devastating thought.
This has been a great week for science—as the Prime Minister said, the “scientific cavalry” is on its way to help us through this pandemic—but we need to look at a more compassionate solution to protect vulnerable residents in care homes. The news that we are one step closer to an effective vaccine is fantastic and gives us cautious hope for a more normal 2021.
On testing, the scientific progress has been extraordinary. We need to see a clearer ramping up of testing in care homes. I urge those on the Front Bench to look into the testing of visitors who go to care homes. We should give them the ability to take a quick test and get the results coming in, even if it involves waiting for an hour, so that they can at least try to get that access and see their loved ones. I am sure that that would go a long way towards improving matters as we go forward to next year.

Felicity Buchan: I warmly welcome the encouraging developments on the vaccine front, and I am glad that my local authority, Kensington and Chelsea, will be a beneficiary of the rapid-testing scheme.
I am also glad that case rates in my local authority are tailing off—in fact, in the past week they were down 28% and are now almost back down to 100 cases per 100,000, standing at 111 yesterday. Indeed, the data for London for the past week, released yesterday, shows that cases were down in 26 of the 33 boroughs and hospital admissions were also down on the week.
I strongly encourage those on the Front Bench to ensure that, when 2 December comes, we leave lockdown and review the tier that London comes out into. A case is beginning to develop that London—which is the powerhouse of our economy, accounting for 25% of our total tax revenue—should come out into tier 1. We still have a few weeks to go and I encourage Londoners to do everything that we can to get the R down and the number of cases per 100,000 down. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give proper focus to the tier into which London leaves lockdown.

Dean Russell: I am conscious of time, so despite wanting to make arguments on greater flexibility for worshippers, outdoor exercise, support for pubs—I could go on—I will not cover those things, as there have been excellent contributions on them already.
Today is a really important day of remembrance. As I have reflected on this debate, I have often considered the analogy that we are in an invisible war against the coronavirus—and this has been an invisible war. It is not a fight where we can see footage of battles won on beaches, air-raid sirens do not alert us to run for cover when the enemy is nearby, and this is not a battle where we can look our enemies in the eyes.
Nor, though, can we see the successes of our actions. We will never know the grandparent whose life we saved simply by wearing a mask. We will never know the father who avoided the devastating symptoms of long covid simply because we washed our hands. We will never know the mother who could go to work today simply because we chose to socially distance in a shop. And, God forbid, because we followed the Government guidance, we will never know the nurse who would have held our hand as we fought the virus from a hospital bed.
Our actions have consequences. Covid-19 has no conscience; it does not care who it infects or whose life it devastates. Coronavirus has a singular goal, and that is to multiply—to spread to us all—so it is on us all to stop it. No doubt in some laboratory there is a modern version of Alan Turing beating the code of covid, but until then it is on every single person in this nation to fight this virus. I want to say thank you to my constituents in Watford and to people across the country for following the Government guidance—for washing their hands, wearing a mask and socially distancing. Together we can win this war, and it is through that that we will succeed.

Richard Holden: I will keep my comments as brief as I can. First, I welcome the excellent news this week on the vaccine. I know that we are not there yet and that “hands, face, space” is still really important, and I echo that to my constituents today. I also thank the Government for the rapid testing in County Durham.
Others have made this argument already, but the three g’s—gyms, God and golf—have filled my inbox, so if there is anything that can be done on that for 2 December or before, I would really appreciate it. My constituents really are looking forward to 2 December, so I hope we do not have to see anything further beyond that.
I had a call last week with care homes in my constituency, so I will rattle through some of the issues that they raised. First, there has been some difficulty accessing flu vaccines for staff in care homes. Obviously, that is a bit of an issue with respect to transmission when they are dealing with older people. Those working in domiciliary care and going out into the community have had trouble getting testing for covid in some cases, so if there is any way that we can, perhaps, move towards weekly testing for those people, that would be brilliant.
The portal is seen as good and improving, but although the quantities have improved over recent weeks, some care homes are still having trouble getting the total quantities that they need, so anything that could be done on that would be really helpful. Finally, if there is any way that the infection control fund could be made more flexible, particularly if it could be allowed to help some care homes create facilities for better visiting, that would be great.

Andy Carter: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden). He said so many of the things that I wanted to say, so I can cut my speech right down.
I start by paying tribute to those in Warrington South who are playing such a critical part in our battle against covid. Earlier this week, I was really pleased to hear from the Health Secretary that Warrington will receive 10,000 antigen lateral flow devices this week to start the process of mass testing. That allows the director of public health in Warrington to focus her team’s efforts and to start testing priority groups. It means we can start to tackle the challenges of children being sent home from school, and help students, teachers and parents to live their lives in a bit more of a normal fashion.
Having grown that capacity, we can also do regular tests in the NHS to try to tackle some of the transmission in hospitals. It is really important to keep people safe when they go there for regular testing. Over the last two weeks, Warrington Hospital has been piloting testing for all patient-facing staff. It has tested around 3,900 in total. It really surprised me that there were only 50 positive asymptomatic cases—less than 2%. That is a really worthwhile exercise.
The news that Pfizer’s vaccine has achieved a 90% success rate in more than six countries, with 43,500 volunteers, is very welcome, but I want to praise in particular and support the vaccine taskforce and its chair, Kate Bingham. We seem to have a bit of a problem that, when someone in the private sector gives up their time—unpaid—to work for the national interest, Opposition Members and parts of the media seem to go out of their way to bring them down. I was particularly interested in the comment by Sir John Bell, the professor of medicine at Oxford University, who was clear in saying that, if it were not for her, the 30 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine would not be arriving in this country. This lady deserve our grateful appreciation, not smears and division.

Bob Seely: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter). I agree that the work of the vaccine taskforce has been superb. It is one of the reasons why we are first in a lot of queues; we are ahead of EU states, for example. I thank all the careworkers and NHS staff on the Isle of Wight for the wonderful work they do. In the short time I have, I will make two brief points: on data and on strategy.
First, we all agree that, in a free state, rather than a police state, Government need to be respected and trusted and part of that trust surely rests on the use of data. We all remember how Labour was destroyed over what it said on the Gulf war and the dodgy dossiers. We cannot go down that route again with data. So does the Minister share my concern that so many people, including reputable scientists, have raised significant issues about how we are using data and the transparency of data? For me, the answer to that question is for the Government to become fully transparent with all the science and, in the spirit of the great national endeavour we are in, allow and encourage examination of that data by independent scientists, preferably prior to decision making, not commenting afterwards and finding significant flaws in the data. That data should include the full cost of lockdowns: medical, social and economic, and short and medium term.
Secondly, may we please have a strategic approach to this problem? It would be wonderful if a vaccine works perfectly, but that is unlikely and waiting for a magic  bullet is not a strategy but the absence of one. If we have a clear strategy and clear use of data, it would be much easier for the Government to turn to Conservative Members and ask us for the support they will need in the weeks and months ahead.

Rosena Allin-Khan: On this day of remembrance, I pay tribute to all those who made the ultimate sacrifice so that we can stand here today with the freedoms we hold dear. And I would like to formally put on the record my congratulations to President-elect Joe Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris. We look forward to working together to tackle this global pandemic.
We have heard today that the UK has tragically become the first country in Europe to pass 50,000 covid-19 deaths. It speaks to why we are all here today to discuss the greatest challenge of our time. We have heard some superb speeches in the debate. I pay a special tribute to Mary Hutchins, the nan of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), who does her community proud. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who was incredibly powerful in speaking up for Jamie and his family.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) all rightly raised the murky world of procurement and the complete lack of transparency. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) spoke movingly about the need to do better for those in care homes.
There is a clear sense of hope about the prospect of a vaccine. It has come at the end of a particularly bleak year that has left none untouched by the effects of the virus, but we need to ensure that this is not false hope. There must be a clear plan for manufacture and distribution. With little time to get that right, can the Minister please outline how the Government will ensure that those deemed a priority to receive the initial dose will be able to access it?
On the topic of priority groups, in June, the Health and Social Care Secretary saidthat the Government would consider black, Asian and minority ethnic groups as a priority for a vaccine, but that does not seem to be the case now. Why? I have seen at first hand patients in intensive care fighting for their lives because of this virus. I was overwhelmed by how many of them were from our BAME communities. Is it not possible for the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to consider multiple risk factors when rolling out the vaccine? What about all those adults who have been shielding for months? Throughout the summer they urged the Government not to forget them. What is the Government’s message for them today?
Finally on a potential vaccine, I sincerely hope that we are successful, but if there are setbacks that mean that the vaccine is not rolled out until later in 2021 the Government must have a plan in place that is communicated effectively to the public and which outlines what restrictions may look like. I hope to see the Government planning for that scenario, so that as a nation we are not caught off-guard again by the virus.
Sadly, people feel left behind. They need to feel that they have a Government on their side. The feeling of isolation and loneliness needs urgent attention from the  Government this winter. The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention tweeted only a couple of days ago that mental health services have never closed, and have continued throughout, but for many, especially those who rely on group therapies, that has not been the reality.
It is important that we do not forget those who need to access mental health services for the first time and simply do not know where to turn. Our wedding industry, talented people involved in the arts, musicians, photographers and small family-run businesses feel as if no one is listening to them. The Government did them a great disservice by describing their careers as unviable—that cut to the core of who they are, the talents that they have and the way in which they give back to our economy. I have heard from people in the industries that I have mentioned who felt that the Government were questioning their viability not just in the workplace but as husbands, wives and parents. That has affected their mental health greatly. When Ministers come to the House they must take responsibility for the language that they use and understand the detrimental knock-on effects that it can have on people’s mental health. Artists, creatives and entrepreneurs need a Government who are on their side, showing them that they care not only about their livelihood but about their mental health. How will they be supported through the winter?
As the days become shorter at a time when people are missing their families and way of life, what provisions are in place for anyone who needs help with their mental ill health? What support will be offered to organisations and communities across the country that are lifelines to people who rely on them for a bit of brightness in their day? On suicide, is there a plan for a comprehensive national real-time monitoring system for suspected suicides that will allow us to monitor and respond to new concerns among particular groups of people or in particular areas of the country? I am sure, whatever side of the House we are on, we agree that this is important.
What is the Government’s suicide prevention strategy in the light of covid-19? Many people with serious mental illnesses have been feeling left out of the Government’s strategy to tackle covid-19, with research finding that people with a pre-existing mental health diagnosis were 65% more likely to be diagnosed with covid-19 than those without such a diagnosis. Will the Minister outline any work that the Government are conducting to provide assistance for people with schizophrenia, psychosis or borderline personality disorder?
Members have raised many times in the Chamber the fact that expectant mothers are suffering immeasurably because they cannot bring a birthing partner with them into hospital, whether to accompany them to tests to check on their unborn baby, or when they are giving birth. What support has been offered to those suffering from post-natal depression? Some expectant mothers and fathers have had to endure the worst and find out that they are miscarrying. What support is available to mothers who have to be told that alone, and break down on the phone trying to tell their partner or a loved one? We have to do better for those people.
What support has been offered to mental health trusts for the winter? Are they able to access funding to support the safe discharge of patients from hospital in the light of the second spike? It is crucial that this is given the attention it deserves.
I welcome the announcement of routine testing for frontline NHS staff. We have been requesting that for months, and it is an important development for not only protecting staff but infection control in healthcare settings. There have been other changes to testing, and I would like to take this opportunity to pick up on plans for the mass distribution of lateral flow tests. What resources are being allocated to the local councils that are getting access to 10,000 lateral flow tests, including in my borough of Wandsworth, to make this a success? For areas with a disproportionately high number of vulnerable groups, how will the Government address any strain on council resources?
After weeks of unnecessary delay, the Government have now addressed the need to get students home safely over Christmas, and tests will be made available. Could the Government outline how they plan to work with universities and local councils to ensure that rapid and accurate testing is available for all students who need it? How will the tests be administered, and are the Government prepared to comment on what students should do in January?
We must understand that our students have endured a particularly difficult time, with the exams fiasco, being told it was safe to go to university, arriving at university only to be made to feel responsible for the second spike of covid-19 and then being trapped in dormitories with strangers, unable to leave to do their shopping or see their families. We have to get it right for our students, who we are allowing to go home over the Christmas holidays.
We have a long road ahead, and we cannot lose hope. The Government need to get their response to this crisis right, and they do not have to spend taxpayers’ money on PR consultants to do so. For many months, brave people across the country have played their part in fighting this virus. We cannot let them down now.

Jo Churchill: I would like to thank everybody who has contributed to the debate and to the tone of it. I add my personal thanks to all those who are working on the frontline and in public services. This has been an incredibly difficult year for those individuals, and there is arguably still much work to be done.
I would also like to add my thanks to the armed forces. We heard powerful speeches earlier this afternoon on everything that our armed forces have done, but they have also contributed enormously to our ability to tackle the pandemic so far through the distribution of PPE, rolling out mobile testing centres, building Nightingale hospitals and being involved in the important planning for the roll-out of a vaccine when one is fully approved.
I would like to thank all those who brought to this place today stories of personal loss—in particular, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), who told us of the sad loss of her family member this week, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who told us so poignantly about Jamie.
From many of the contributions, it is clear that hopes for a vaccine are running high following the encouraging news of the phase 3 trial results from Pfizer and BioNTech  on Monday, and I share that sense of optimism. Science, academia, life sciences and private and public institutions have worked together. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) said, we would not be here without such endeavours of the private sector working with us. It is a promising development, and the UK is ahead of the game in securing an order for 40 million doses.
I would like to thank the head of the vaccine taskforce. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) said that she is “impressive” and on top of her brief. I could not have put it better than my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter). It is under her leadership that this is one of many vaccine candidates that we have secured.
There are six in total, two at phase 3. We have placed orders for a further 300 million doses from the five other candidates, which are yet to report. That also includes the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine; my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) highlighted the endeavours of AstraZeneca in Cambridge.
I share the sense of optimism, but I also want to associate myself with the words of caution that many Members have expressed, including my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). It is worth reiterating that the MRHA will not approve a vaccine unless it is clinically safe. There are still many unknowns. Until a vaccine is rolled out, we will not know how long its effects will last or its impact on reducing transmissions, and there are no guarantees.
The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) articulated the importance of making sure that people have accurate information to ensure that they take up vaccines. I assure her that the Government are working hard to ensure that people feel confident in the vaccine roll-out. We are working with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, cross-Government and with technology companies to ensure that we limit misinformation and promote positive messages to get as much uptake of vaccination as we can. If this or any other vaccine is approved, we will be ready with a large-scale vaccination programme, which is being worked on at the moment.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb) and for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) for their optimism in outlining the progress that we have made so far and how hard people have worked.
One point in particular that I would like to pick up on is PPE. When the pandemic started, we produced 1% of our PPE needs in the UK. By December, we will be providing 70% of the amount that we expect to use at the rates anticipated in December for all items except gloves. That is enormous progress. It is an industry that has been built from scratch, and it has been replicated through testing and diagnostics across the country. I would like to thank everyone involved.
But it has been tough, and nowhere has it been tougher—we have heard about how difficult it is—than for families with members of their family in care homes. We heard about that from my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield, for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), and my  right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones). I pay tribute to the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who has to perform an incredibly difficult balancing act. It is a terribly hard time for families and residents, but also for care home staff. Their first duty is to keep their residents safe.
Last Thursday, guidance was published to enable care home providers, families and local professionals to find the right balance between the benefits of visiting and the risk of transmission. Care home visits will be allowed to develop further via trials to allow more visits supported by testing. Care homes, like GPs, can access free PPE via the portal until March, so if people are not signed up, I would encourage them to do so.
On testing, the House should also be encouraged by the pilots, and I thank those hon. Members who were grateful for the roll-out of testing. I also thank all those hospitals, such as Warrington, who have run pilots for us. We cannot learn without developing these systems. We have the pilots in Stoke-on-Trent and Liverpool in whole-town and city testing, and we are now in a position to roll out twice-weekly testing for all NHS staff, something that I am grateful the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) mentioned. It is essential for the safety of patients and staff alike.
I will move on to international restrictions because, despite the positive developments, the national restrictions for England, which this House voted for last week, are as important as ever. Although I hear the calls of colleagues, we must remember that we are here to protect lives. However, I fully take on board that we are also here to protect livelihoods. I have heard those contributions on how the measures have impacted on businesses, and I recognise the strength of feeling on that.

Bob Seely: Will the Minister give way?

Jo Churchill: I have only two minutes left. I would be happy to take the matter up with my hon. Friend afterwards.
I cannot speak for the Chancellor, but I know he will have heard the contributions by hon. and right hon. Friends, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset, to ask him to listen to those who pay themselves through dividends. However, we have had an unprecedented package of support, including some £200 billion since March and the furlough scheme, which has protected the jobs of some 9 million people. I am married to a small business owner. Some 99% of all businesses in this country are SMEs and 95% of them are micros. This is hard, and nobody is denying that.
On data, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), because it is important. I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), but the scientific picture last week was bleak and the consequences, as we have seen, come in the 10 days after, with rising numbers of admissions and, tragically, deaths. The R rate was above 1 in every single region of the country. The virus is growing more quickly in older populations, and the number of cases in the over-60s in England doubled between 14 October and 4 November. That is why it was imperative to take action. As we deliver the vaccination, it will be the JVCI that determines how we roll it out and the risk stratification on which we do it.
We must persevere. I understand the weariness of people, but I close by echoing the words of many—I am sure all of us—and pay tribute to the NHS and care staff, who I know are exhausted. They will be so important in helping us get through this winter and, we hope, in delivering a safe and effective vaccine. I pay special tribute not only to the general practice community pharmacies and community health teams, but all workers on the frontline. There are some unsung heroes of the pandemic, and I want them to know how much we value them. It is through incredible contributions that we will see this through to a brighter day.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered covid-19.

Petition - Welfare of horses in Wellingborough

Philip Hollobone: I rise to present a petition at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on behalf of his constituents, as he cannot be here to present it himself as he is shielding. His petition is about how we protect vulnerable horses who are mistreated by their owners, particularly those horses on the Embankment in Wellingborough. He has asked that the petition be read by the Clerk at the Table.

Rosie Winterton: The Clerk will now read the text of the petition, as allowed under Standing Orders.
The Clerk at the Table read the petition, which was as follows:
[The Humble Petition of the residents of Wellingborough, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,
Sheweth,
That the Petitioners believe that laws regarding the welfare of horses should be reformed and enforced to protect vulnerable horses who are mistreated by their owners on the grounds that the current laws leave the ‘codes of practice’ open to debate and opinion, resulting in horses being neglected by their owners as the law is open to interpretation. In particular, the horses who reside by the Embankment in Wellingborough are neglected food, water and shelter, resulting in these animals having a poor-quality life.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs to introduce reforms to laws regarding the welfare of horses and to work with The Borough Council of Wellingborough and the RSPCA to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to protect the welfare of the horses on the embankment in Wellingborough.
And your Petitioners, as duty bound, will ever pray, &c.]
[P002623]

Coventry Blitz: 80th Anniversary

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Maggie Throup.)

Colleen Fletcher: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting me this Adjournment debate to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the November 1940 bombing of Coventry.
The Coventry blitz was, of course, a defining moment in the history of my city, bringing both great hardship and change to Coventry. It is also, I feel, an important event to recall during the current pandemic. In this year of great hardship, many have sought to look back at the blitz as a blueprint for how communities can come together and overcome the toughest of circumstances. I am sure that all would agree that Coventry, the phoenix city which rose from the rubble to post-war success, is an inspirational tale for this time.
As a key centre of wartime production, Coventry, a pioneering engineering and manufacturing city, was a prime target. Indeed, prior to the air raid on 14 November, Coventry had already been the victim of a number of smaller air raids. But the events of 14 November 1940 were different. Over 11 hours, nearly 500 bombers dropped over 500 tonnes of high explosives, 30,000 incendiaries, and 50 landmines on the city. The sheer scale of the destruction would lead to the Germans inventing a new word, Coventration or to Coventrate, to describe the level of devastation. In that one night, just over half the city’s housing stock, approximately 43,000 houses, were damaged or destroyed. There was also widespread damage to factories, shops, workplaces and, as it was in the centre of the city, civic buildings. Most famously, an incendiary device landed on Coventry’s cathedral, destroying the medieval church of St Michael’s. On a visit to the city following the bombing, King George VI is said to have wept as he surveyed the ruins.
There was also an incredibly high human cost. The official death toll from the night was 554 people. A further 865 people were seriously injured. Among the disruption and the building rubble, many more were never accounted for.

Taiwo Owatemi: I join my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour in Coventry in paying tribute to the brave people of Coventry’s home front who, on 14 November 1940, endured a blitz that destroyed 15 factories and 43,000 homes. I honour individuals’ quiet acts of courage and selflessness that enabled them to endure devastation, and to rebuild in a spirit of peace and reconciliation. As my hon. Friend has said, during this pandemic we are reminded of what it is to come together and to endure uncertain times. I honour the fortitude and sacrifices of our veterans and civilians, and reflect on how those qualities are still with us today. Will my hon. Friend join me in that reflection?

Colleen Fletcher: Of course I will join my hon. Friend in that and I will come on to those points, which are renowned in Coventry. People know about the communities in Coventry.
As I was saying, these people would be later commemorated in a number of mass funerals. Today, a monument still stands in the London Road cemetery.  Almost every Coventry family who had members present in the city at the time have a story about the Coventry blitz. Those stories live on, often through children and grandchildren, and certainly through many publications. They include stories that range from the incredible to the tragic. There are stories about children and families who had spent 11 hours crouching in shelters. One man recalled being pursued down a street by a knee-high river of boiling butter from a nearby blazing dairy. An abandoned tram was blown clean over a house and into a garden—it landed with its windows still intact. There were reports the morning after of a lone fireman watching helplessly while the buildings were still burning. For one family, all that remained of their home was the washing line pole, which was found streets away in a school playground.
The story of the Coventry Blitz was also important in my family. My parents were both in Coventry on that night. They did not discuss the war very often with us when we were children, but from speaking to my siblings—I have two sisters and a brother—I know that we all had the same recollections of things that they had said about that night. My father was 15 years old in 1940, and he watched the devastation from Stoke Heath common, which is in my constituency. It is not far from where he lived and a couple of miles from the city centre. He always spoke about the sky over the city centre having an immense red glow. He later went on to join the Royal Navy when he was old enough to do so, and caught the last year of the war. My mother was just 12, and lived not far from the centre of Coventry, in Howard Street.
Mum spent that night under the stairs, as many did; that was where she spent the nights when there were bombing raids. Amazingly, when she emerged in the morning, she discovered that not one pane of glass had been broken in their house. Many other streets nearby were not so lucky, but this demonstrates just how much the bombing was concentrated in the city centre. My grandad was an ARP warden and was out on duty that night. We still have his white steel helmet with a “W” on it. It also has an “FW” on it, as he was a fire watcher. It is a stark reminder of the dangers faced that night.
The days and weeks after 14 November took a heavy toll on the people of Coventry. Visitors from Mass-Observation noted that the night
“had left people practically speechless”.
The day after the air raid, one observer, Tom Harrisson, noted that
“the size of the town meant nearly everyone knew someone who was killed or missing. The dislocation is so total that people easily feel that the town itself is killed. ‘Coventry is finished’ and Coventry is dead’ were the key phrases of Fridays talk. There were more open signs of hysteria, terror and neurosis observed in one evening than during the whole of the rest of the past two months in all areas.”
He went on to say:
“The overwhelmingly dominant feeling on Friday was the feeling of utter helplessness”—
and it
“had left people practically speechless in many cases.”
The reporting goes on to capture how many people felt powerless amid such widespread destruction. There were also practical issues with the gas, electric and water supply, which had been damaged in the bombing. Many woke up to find themselves unemployed, with their  workplaces having been hit heavily in the air raid. For many, it might well have felt as though life would never be the same.
Yet, despite of all the challenges, the city was neither dead nor finished. The people of Coventry rose to the challenge of rebuilding the city, and what followed was a testament to the power of community and the courage of those who had seen such destruction. They came from all backgrounds and all walks of life. There were air raid wardens, auxiliary firemen and members of the home guard and the Women’s Voluntary Service. Help also came from churches and community organisations, and from extended families determined to help each other out. It will be surely lost on no one how these pillars of community continue to be vital, especially at times such as the present. To paraphrase one observer, acts of individual courage following the bombing could fill a book, and they have.
Following that night, 1,800 members of the armed forces were brought to Coventry to help with the repairs. Within the first few weeks, basic repairs had been carried out on 12,000 homes. Within a fortnight, many of the bombed factories had already started production. That meant that 80% of the workers who had been made unemployed after the bombing were back at work, a feat that was heralded by much of the national press at the time.

Matt Western: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I commend her for securing this Adjournment debate. She was speaking about the psychological trauma that so many Coventrians felt, and I sensed that when I arrived in the city in the early ’80s. She also described the utter devastation, and the obliteration of the city. The fact that the people of Coventry rebuilt their industries and their factories and switched them to munitions, and got aircraft back into manufacture, was an extraordinary feat. That is what says so much about the people of Coventry.

Colleen Fletcher: Indeed, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
It is for those reasons that the phoenix became a symbol of Coventry, symbolising Coventry’s rising from the ashes and renewing itself against the odds. It was this spirit that would be at the heart of Coventry’s post-war revival. Out of the rubble and the ashes of the second world war, Coventry’s industries would thrive. This in turn would drive the growth of the city. A wealth of jobs and opportunities brought many to Coventry, first from the rest of the UK and Ireland and later from the Commonwealth.
As I have already mentioned, the memory of the Coventry blitz lives on in the city. Some of the legacies are physical and tangible, and the most obvious are in the remains of the old cathedral, which stand as a solemn reminder of that night. Some of the names of those who gave so much to the city live on in city landmarks. Many of my constituents may well have been pupils at Sidney Stringer or Pearl Hyde schools, both of which were named after councillors who played a leading role during the war and in the reconstruction of the city that followed. The latter was a councillor for the then Walsgrave ward in my constituency, and she was the first female lord mayor of Coventry during the war. She led the Women’s Voluntary Service in the city and was awarded an MBE for her efforts during the blitz.
The blitz has been commemorated regularly in the city. A particular highlight was in 1990 on the 50th anniversary, when Coventry was visited by the Queen Mother. Of course, this year we will sadly not have the opportunity to commemorate and honour the memory of the Coventry blitz in a similar fashion. However, regardless of social distancing, we will be able to honour the spirit and the lessons of the event. It is worth recognising the powerful message of peace and reconciliation that has come from that night.
The experience of the blitz spurred Coventry to look outwards and offer support and solidarity to cities around the world facing tragedy. In 1942, the first twinning of cities happened when Coventry was twinned with Stalingrad in recognition of the plight of that city during the German invasion. Alongside aid, a tablecloth containing the embroidered names of 900 Coventry women was sent to the city of Stalingrad. The link between the two cities continues to this day, showing that out of the horror of war can come hope and friendship. Perhaps an even more powerful statement can be seen in Coventry’s twinning with the German cities of Kiel and Dresden, demonstrating clearly a desire to see peace and reconciliation triumph over the hatred of the war years.
Today, Coventry cathedral still does vital work across the world to foster peace and understanding between communities. The International Cross of Nails Schools network supports schools that seek to cross sectarian divides, in Northern Ireland, South Africa, Israel, Palestine and many more. All this is inspired by the strength of feeling that came from that night that there was a brighter and more peaceful future for both the city of Coventry and the wider world. It is this desire to look to the future as a community against all odds that is most important for us to remember and recognise. In the face of all the horror and fear, ordinary citizens did extraordinary things. Out of the ashes of that night, Coventry rose like a phoenix. In the years following the war, it thrived, becoming home to many more who have surely drawn on this historic spirit.
It goes without saying that the story of the Coventry blitz—a story of courage and community, of resilience and reconciliation—is worthy of recognition. I am grateful to be given the opportunity in this place to recall and commemorate the Coventry blitz: the most horrific event in my city’s history. I am grateful for this chance to applaud the courage, spirit and resilience of the people of Coventry, both for those who were there and those like me, who grew up with memories of the night. Finally, to hope—that, for the future, resources will always be available to keep reminding people of all these things. Lest we forget.

Johnny Mercer: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) for a very moving contribution. I welcome this important debate, and congratulate her on securing it.
Although almost 80 years have passed, as we reflect on what happened that night many people will have in mind the ruins of Coventry cathedral, which the hon. Member mentioned as a poignant reminder of the scars that those raids left on the city. As she will know, Coventry was a major manufacturing centre for the  British aircraft industry. It built its reputation, and showed it time and again during the first world war and the second world war, but that manufacturing industry also made it a target. The Luftwaffe raid on the night of 14 November 1940 was designed to stifle that proud city’s history and innovation.
For the Nazi regime, the battle of Britain was not the end of the argument on air power, and, one step ahead of the allies, they had developed a new targeting system to get their bombers on target. Using this very system, on 14 November at just past 7 o’clock in the evening, the first aircraft—KG 100s—flew over Coventry, dropping flares to illuminate the city for the following waves of bombers. As the hon. Member said, for around 11 hours Coventry was shaken by bombs as they fell throughout the night. The last bombs fell at about 5.30 am the following morning of 15 November. The devastation left behind was absolutely unprecedented at the time. Firefighters from across the east midlands raced to Coventry to desperately battle the flames that roared across the city, but their bravery saw some three dozen of their own killed, proving fruitless against the reign  of incendiaries. The ruins of the Cathedral Church of St Michael stands in mute testimony to the horrors of that evening.
In the aftermath of the raid, our military leaders’ thoughts turned to how the Germans had been able to operate with impunity to such tragic effect over Coventry. Although it is a persistent and widely published claim that Churchill sacrificed Coventry to keep British code-breaking a secret, this is a myth. Enigma and signals intelligence had some prior understanding that Moonlight Sonata—the general name that the Germans gave the raid—would target a midlands city, but they did not know which one. As the events that night showed, even knowing that crucial information would not have been enough to avoid the onslaught. Sadly, that night Coventry paid the price for defences that had proved to be entirely inadequate. Despite a raid lasting for 10 hours on one target, RAF night fighters did not shoot down a single bomber. This was undoubtedly a heartbreaking and frustrating experience for the Royal Air Force, whose heroics only a few months earlier had secured the daylight skies from German aggression in the battle of Britain.
In the skies at night, it was very different. This was not for lack of endeavour, for though the RAF night fighters had launched over 120 sorties, desperately searching the night skies for German bombers, this was a form of aerial defence very much in its infancy. Air crew were sorely lacking the training and tools for the task; furthermore, they faced an almost impossible task against an enemy that held all the cards, for the onus was on the RAF to find them and intercept them in darkness across the vastness of the night skies. The ground-based radar system was optimised to track bombers approaching the coast, but not inland, and was not accurate enough to allow the RAF fighters close enough for visual contact. Even if they had been able to see them, the night fighter aircraft were little faster than their adversaries—barely able to catch the lumbering German bombers, never mind shoot them down. Only one German bomber was lost that whole evening, and that fell victim to an anti-aircraft gun battery near Loughborough.
However, the tragic events that unfolded that night over Coventry are not the end of the story, for this was to be one of a number of catalysts to drive forward significant developments. Those early systems that had failed in terms of detection and training over Coventry would be refined, tried, tested and improved, over and over again, to provide the capabilities that the Royal Air Force employs today. The modern Royal Air Force systems can trace their roots right back to those years. Through the development of its integrated air surveillance and control system, the Royal Air Force has built on the principles founded by the Chain Home radar system to deliver it on a far grander and more comprehensive scale. Through a complex array of overlapping radar and information built up through military, civilian and our NATO partners’ networks, our air personnel are able to keep a watchful eye on the whole of the UK airspace and beyond.
Through that constant vigilance, threats are now identified and appropriate actions taken, scrambling Typhoon interceptor aircraft where necessary. These are a far cry from their sluggish night fighter forebears: the Typhoons can zero in on aircraft faster than the speed of sound, and are guided to their targets’ locations with unerring precision. These interceptors, which together with our comprehensive air and space surveillance system form part of the United Kingdom’s quick reaction alert, are on duty every hour of every day. They now keep our country safe and prevent unchallenged encroachment of our airspace. Against the backdrop of an uncertain world, we need these skills and this training as much as we ever have.
If the events of Coventry have taught us anything, it is that we cannot take the defence of the United Kingdom for granted. It is telling that what befell the city that night was not due to a lack of human spirit or effort, which the people of Great Britain have shown time and again—that night and since—but was the consequence of an enemy operating its technological advances. It is therefore right that we continue to support our armed forces: recognise their efforts, reward their bravery, and give them the tools and technologies to succeed. In doing so, we should continue to strive to ensure that we can defend them against the threats we face today, through our determination that we will never again see an attack like the blitz on Coventry 80 years ago. We learned the lessons, and as I said earlier today, if we are to truly honour and remember those who sacrificed, we have to learn and change what we do to make sure it can never happen again.
From a city that suffered a similar blitz—Plymouth—the city the I represent, I pay tribute to the hon. Lady. What is extraordinary about these cities is their ability to regenerate and to never give up, and that extraordinary spirit saw that generation through the war. I am sure that her relatives, whom she spoke of tonight, would be very proud of her for having secured this really important debate about a terrible tragedy that we must redouble our efforts to ensure never happens on this nation’s soil again.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.